Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER  in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BALKAN STATES.

Captain CAZALET: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps were taken at Geneva during the last meeting of the League of Nations to form a better understanding between the Balkan States on the principle of the Locarno Agreement, especially with regard to the advocacy of such ideas by Jugo-Slavia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): The Assembly of the League adopted a Resolution on the 25th September last proposed by a Jugoslav delegate recommending that all States members of the League should regard the principles laid down at Locarno as rules for the governance of their foreign policy and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. I am unaware of any subsequent developments except that conversations took place between statesmen from the Balkan countries.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he proposes to submit a plan for British disarmament as part of a scheme for general disarmament before the Disarmament Commission?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The course to be taken by His Majesty's Government must depend on the recommendations made by the Preparatory Committee for the Disarmament Conference. Until that Committee has reported, His
Majesty's Government clearly cannot commit themselves to any proposal.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the very important position which Great Britain occupies as to whether this conference will be successful or not, is it not very desirable that our Government should get some kind of definite plan as to disarmament?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the question on the Paper which I have already answered.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the Foreign Secretary say whether the representations of the British Government at the recent conference have satisfied the French point of view with regard to this matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot answer a question of that kind without notice, and I do not think I could answer it unless it is put in more precise terms.

EXPENDITURE.

Mr. SMITH: 5.
also asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Resolution put forward by the Indian delegation to the last Assembly of the League to the effect that the expenditure of the League should be kept down to the present standard for a period of several years had the support of Great Britain?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Indian Resolution had the support of the representatives of His Majesty's Governments in Great Britain and Overseas, and was adopted by the Assembly, but for its exact purport I would invite the House to refer to the terms of the Resolution itself. The hon. Member's question is hardly a fair description.

SPHERE OF ACTION.

Mr. SMITH: 6.
further asked the Secretary of State, in connection with the British proposal to the last Assembly of the League of Nations to consider what questions were and what were not within the sphere of action of the League, whether the Government intends to press this proposal; and whether any statement can be made to the House on the subject?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As the result of the British proposal, the Assembly of the League passed a Resolution which meets the case made by my noble Friend, Lord Cecil, and which would appear to render unnecessary any further initiative by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that we should endeavour to define in particular what is the work of the League, and is it not far better that a country like ourselves, which has an unwritten Constitution, should not press for a definite written constitution for the League?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir, I am not at all in favour of rewriting the constitution of the League, but I think my Noble Friend did a real service to the League when he called the attention, of the Assembly to the danger that the true purposes of the League might be overlapped by activities which did not require international co-operation, and which impinged on the sovereignty of the States members.

Mr. SMITH: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the activities as regards the mandatory question, for instance, come under that category?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

CHERVONETZ NOTES.

Mr. THURTLE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to state whether the Soviet Government has notified its banks not to accept Chervonetz notes from correspondents abroad?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. Following on the law of 31st July last, whereby the export of Chervonetz from Russia was completely prohibited, the Soviet Government have instructed their agents abroad not to accept notes for collection except from undoubtedly bona fide holders.

TRADE AGRFAMENT.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the express proviso in Clause 13 of the Trade Agreement
between Great Britain and the Russian Soviet Republic to the effect that if either of the parties to the agreement infringes the conditions referred to in the preamble of the agreement by conducting propaganda against the other then such other party shall immediately be free from the obligations of the agreement; and if he will inform the House why this Clause has not been acted upon, in view of the admittedly negative results of the repeated protests which have been made on behalf of His Majesty's Government to the Soviet Charge d'Affaires in this respect?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. His Majesty's Government are not unmindful of the terms of the Trade Agreement. If they have not hitherto exercised the right therein reserved to them, it is because, viewing the situation as a whole, they have not thought it expedient to do so. They reserve to themselves liberty to act at any time as and when in their opinion British interests require a decision.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the weakness of the Foreign Office in not insisting on the observance of the expressed terms of this Agreement is held by those best able to judge as largely responsible for the damage to our trade in China, which has been caused by Russian agents?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No one regrets more than I do that my hon. Friend and I differ on this question, but it would be indelicate for me to express an opinion as to which of us is best informed.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I ask whether the terms of the Agreement do not lay it down that, if there is considered to be any breach of the Agreement, representations will be made by either party to the head of the Government concerned; and, if that is so, may T ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has represented to the Soviet Government that there has been a breach of the Agreement?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. At every interview I have had with their representative in this country I have made that representation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in certain cases those who run can read, and is it not a
well-known fact that our trade, in China has been dissipated and destroyed by reason of Bofshevik intrigue, and that this does not require any special knowledge?

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the dates and the grounds on which he has made specific complaints to the representatives of the Soviet Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Not from memory, but the dates will be supplied by the Under-Secretary of State if the hon. Member thinks them of interest. It has been on every occasion on which I have had an interview with the Soviet representative in London.

Mr. BASIL PETO: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication as to what degree of hostile action on the part of the Soviet Government would justify the Foreign Office in taking action?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, we should be justified on the facts as now known to us in breaking off, if we thought it expedient to do so. His Majesty's Government, reviewing the whole situation, and while reserving their freedom to act as and when they think British interests require, have not thought it desirable hitherto to take that course.

Colonel GRETTON: May I ask whether, in view of the anxiety not only in this House but in the country, there will be an early opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman, as Foreign Secretary, to explain the whole matter to the House?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Any questions about business of the House, as my right hon. Friend knows, must be answered by the Prime Minister. I explained the position fully late in the summer, very near to the Adjournment. At this moment I am going away for a week or 10 days, but I shall be back before the House rises.

Colonel GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Prime Minister of the desire which has been clearly indicated in the House to-day that there should be an occasion for explanation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I will make representations to-day.

Mr. TAYLOR: Would it not be better to enter into a conference to clear up' all the questions outstanding between this country and Russia?

M. KRASSIN'S SUCCESSOR.

Captain FOXCROFT: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to announce the name of the successor to Krassin?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Captain FOXCROFT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to delay the appointment of a successor to M. Krassin until the trade' obligations of the Soviet are carried out, and until they cease to plot against us in China and elsewhere?

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in putting a question insinuating against the good faith of a friendly Power?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is putting as a, supplementary question a question that has been handed to me, and disallowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

STATEMENT BY SIR A. CHAMBERLAIN.

S. Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Powers interested are acting in concert for the protection of the foreign settlement in Hankow?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is no international foreign settlement at Hankow. Great Britain, France and Japan have separate Concessions there. All these Powers have naval forces at present in the port, whose first duty it, is to protect their respective nationals, and who will doubtless, as on former occasions, act in concert where their joint interests are concerned.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the gravity of the situation at Hankow, he can assure the House that there are sufficient ships in readiness to take on board the British residents in the Concession in
the event of the necessity arising; and if not, will he see that further naval assistance is sent without delay?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is note as far as I know, the least reason for supposing that the shipping facilities at Hankow would not be adequate to evacuate all British residents, if that became necessary.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that there are sufficient forces at Hankow to protect British residents and Concessions?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That does not arise out of the question on the Paper. It is raised in another question which I am going to answer.

Mr. LOOKER: 21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any steps are being taken to increase our naval forces at Hankow to ensure adequate protection for British subjects owing to the present condition of affairs at that port?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman): I would ask the hon. Member to wait for the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is making, I understand, at the end of questions.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that telegrams have been received in London in the last few days stating that the Naval forces at Hankow are not sufficient Has he taken any steps to make them sufficient?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: All the information that reaches me through the ordinary official reports and the reports in the newspapers are receiving our most careful attention.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can give the House any further statement with regard to the situation at Hankow

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The situation at Hankow remains generally as described in my reply to the right hon. Gentleman on 29th November. A demonstration took place there on that day. Naval parties were landed in the British Concession with satisfactory moral effect. The processions were turned away from
the Concession and there were no incidents. The latest reports are to the effect that the general strike at Hankow is fixed for 4th December. Arrangements have been made to keep a sloop at Hankow for the winter, and some additional force has been made available for landing if required. The river gunboats of the "insect" class will he moved on the river to and from Hankow as required throughout the winter. The United States naval authorities have sent two destroyers to Hankow for the winter they have also a yacht and a minesweeper there. The Japanese have three gunboats, and the French a mine-sweeper and a despatch vessel.

Me, CAMPBELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government can assure the House that adequate steps are being taken to secure the lives and interests of British subjects?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government will take all the steps which they think are required, and which they can employ to protect t British lives, but they are most 10th to intervene in the domestic affairs of China apart from the necessity of fulfilling their prime duty of defending the rights of British subjects.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Government also assure the House that the lives of British sailors and soldiers will not be sacrificed unnecessarily".

BRITISH SUILJEC1S PROTECTION.

Mr. LOOKER: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if His Majesty's Government are satisfied that adequate forces are available to ensure the safety of the British community in Shanghai should trouble arise there owing to the advance of the Cantonese army to that city, or owing to the activities of the corps of propagandist agitators which forms part of the Cantonese advance?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not at present see reason to anticipate an armed attack on Shanghai by the Cantonese forces. The activities of professional agitators may increase the unrest in labour circles that has been existent in that town for months part, but there do not appear to be grounds for believing that this would involve personal danger to the British community, although it might occasion inconvenience.

Mr. LOOKER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that what is occurring in Hankow is part of an organised campaign by means of starvation and bloodshed to drive the British communities out of these concessions, and that this campaign will inevitably spread to other coast ports, including Shanghai, fostered by this corps of propagandist agitators?

Mr. SPEAKER: I really must ask the hon. Member to put a question like that on the Order Paper. It is important that. I should see questions of this character before they are answered.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will you permit me to say, Sir, that I cannot accept the premises of the question, and I do not think questions of that character really serve British interests at this moment.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: May I ask whether it is the case that the great discontent among the workers in Hankow and elsewhere is the result only of the work of agitators Are there not other important reasons for—

Mr. SPEAKER: Again I should like to see that question on the Order Paper.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the unrest caused by the civil war, he can give any information as to the position of British subjects in China, both in the Treaty ports and in isolated places in the interior; and whether he has made any representations to the Chinese authorities on the desirability of protecting such British subjects where protection is needed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There is at the moment no reason to be apprehensive of personal danger to British subjects in the Treaty ports, with the possible exception of Hankow, concerning which I have promised a statement later this afternoon in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. As regards British subjects living in isolated places in the interior, they are not, as far as I am aware, threatened by any general outbreak of anti-foreign feeling, although individual eases of danger from brigands, lawless gangs and local agitators are bound to occur in the present conditions. His Majesty's diplomatic and consular officers are in constant
touch both with the central and local authorities in China, with a view to obtaining protection for British subjects.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to a letter in the "Times" this morning in which it is said that a massacre was anticipated at Hankow?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I have read it.

Mr. HARRIS: As China is a member of the League of Nations, does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put the whole problem of China before the League?

Mr. LOOKER: is it not a fact that various British communities in China in the last few days have telegraphed for extra naval assistance?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point will arise on the question which is to be put later.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is it not a fact that the soldiers of the Cantonese armies are more in hand and better disciplined than the soldiers in the other Chinese army? The "Times" says that they are, and I ask whether that is a fact or not.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am reluctant to express opinions on the relative humanity of different Chinese armies, but certainly it should not he assumed that the forces of the Cantonese are not as good as any others.

Mr. LOOKER: 25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will furnish the House with particulars of our present naval strength in the Far East?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The strength of the China Squadron is:

Cruisers, 5;
Sloops, 4;
River gunboats, 15;
Submarines, 12;
Submarine depot ships, 2;
Submarine tender, 1;
Despatch vessel, 1;
Armed launches, 3.

The following reinforcements were added to the squadron last October: "Hermes," aircraft carrier, and Third Destroyer Flotilla, which comprises one flotilla leader and eight destroyers.

Mr. LOOKER: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these forces are sufficient
in the present emergency to answer all the calls that may be made upon them for the protection of British subjects?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot possibly forecast all of the calls, to which my hon. Friend refers, that may be made, but we consider that the forces at present are sufficient, and we are considering the possibility of having to add to them.

BRITISH MISSIONARIES, SIANFU.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any information regarding the position of the British missionaries reported to be detained as hostages in Sianfu (Shensi); and whether any attempt is being made to help them?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Sianfu was besieged by Wu Pei-fu's forces, which have since retreated. The present position there is obscure and His Majesty's Minister, Peking, has been asked for news of the missionaries, whom he will undoubtedly do everything in his power to assist.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether General Sutton will be in command of We Pu Fu's troops?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a question about missionaries.

TIENTSIN (KUOMINTANG ARRESTS).

Mr. TREVELYAN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British authorities in Tientsin have arrested 14 of the members of the Kuomintang; and what has been done with the persons arrested?

Mr. VIANT: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is he is aware that the British municipal police at Tientsin raided the Kuomintang headquarters, situated in the British concession; and for what purpose was the raid effected and if there were any arrests?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I propose to answer these questions together. At the direct request of the Chinese police authorities of the native city of Tientsin, the headquarters of the Kuomintang were raided by the British municipal police, and four persons suspected of conspiracy
against law and order and inciting to commit a breach of the peace were arrested. They were handed over by the British Consul-General to the Chinese authorities. It is the established practice that Chinese residing in British concessions in China are deemed to be subject to the jurisdiction of their own authorities. On production of a warrant issued by the competent Chinese authority the British Consul does not interpose himself between any such Chinese and their own authorities, but hands them over immediately without demanding prima facie evidence of a criminal offence. The action taken in this case was in accordance with this practice.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Were they handed over to the civil or the military authority?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say without notice. The ordinary practice was followed.

BRITISH CONSUL-GENERAL (INSTRUCTIONS).

Mr. BARR: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions have been issued to His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow in regard to his relations with the Cantonese authorities, in view of the fact that Mr. Goff was appointed to the post before the Canton Government obtained control of that region?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government desire that British representatives in those parts of China which are under the control of the Cantonese authorities should deal with those authorities so far as possible in a friendly spirit, and His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow has been instructed accordingly.

WANHSIEN INCIDENT.

Mr. BARR: 16 and 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, seeing that in the Note of protest which the Chinese Foreign Office has addressed to His Majesty's Minister at Peking, on the subject. of the bombardment of Wanhsien, inquiry is made as to whether the British naval forces acted under special instructions from the British Government; what reply has been made to this inquiry; and whether, before the bombardment was made, all British subjects and foreign residents were advised to leave Wanhsien;
(2), whether, seeing that Article 1 of Convention IX, concluded at The Hague in 1907, and to which Great Britain is a party, prohibited naval bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings, or other buildings, under all circumstances and conditions, he will say what redress Great Britain intends to make to China for the breach of this agreement committed by His Majesty's ships in bombarding the unfortified town of Wanhsien?

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 19 and 33.
(1) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the attitude adopted in the note of protest addressed by the Wai Chiao-pu to His Majesty's Minister at Peking on the subject of the bombardment of Wanhsien with regard to the responsibility for the bombardment and as to the rights of the Chinese Government as regards claims to be presented later for reparation for damage done to life and property in the city and other equitable measures of redress; and what reply His Majesty's Government have made to this note of protest;
(2) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will publish the full correspondence and cables which passed between the Government and the Commander-in-Chief, China station, relative to the Wanhsien incident?

Mr. STEPHEN: 31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what were the actual orders given to the commanding officers of the warships and auxiliaries concerned in the Wanhsien affair; and whether their Reports have yet been received?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: As there are three questions on the subject of Wanhsien addressed to me as well as two addressed to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, it will perhaps be convenient for me to make a general statement on the subject.
Wanhsien is the headquarters of one of the leading military commanders of Szechuan, and a strongly garrisoned town. It cannot therefore be properly described as an undefended town. In the course of the operations for the relief of the officers imprisoned by General Yang Sen in the ships detained by him, His Majesty's ships were subjected to
heavy fire from troops and field-guns stationed in the town. Action on the part of His Majesty's ships was therefore necessary, but their fire was directed solely at military objectives in order to silence the hostile fire. The suggestion that British subjects and foreign residents were previously advised to leave Wanhsien is not correct. On the 2nd November the Wai Chiao-pu addressed a Note to His Majesty's Minister placing on record a formal protest against the bombardment of Wanhsien by British gunboats, and reserving all the rights of the Chinese Government as regards claims to be presented later for full return of the damage done to life and property in the city of Wanhsien and for other equitable redress. No written reply has yet been sent to this Note, but the Chinese Charge d'Affaires has been verbally informed that His Majesty's Government cannot reply fully until their own information is complete.
As I informed the hon. Member for South-East Essex on the 29th November, I hope to lay papers as soon as my information is complete. The question of the publication of the Admiralty correspondence will be considered at the same time. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty informs me that the naval report on the incident of 5th September has just reached him, but that he has not vet had time to study it.

CANTON GOVERNMENT.

Mr. WILSON: 18.
also asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Government of Canton; and whether, seeing that the Government of Canton now controls a large area of China, including several of the most important centres, and that the Government at Peking is nominated by Marshal Chang Tso-lin and is representative of little more than the Manchurian Provinces, His Majesty's Government has considered the question of formally recognising the Nationalist Government at Canton as the central Government of China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I invite the hon. Member to refer to the reply given to the hon. Member for West Willesden on 11th November, which explains the position.

STEAMSHIP "KIAWO."

Mr. STEPHEN: 30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the steamship "Kiawo," recently belonging to the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company, was taken over by the Admiralty; and for what purpose she was intended?

Mr. BR1DGEMAN: The steamship "Kiawo" was taken up on 4th September for the operations at Wahnsien. She was retained for some time owing to unsettled conditions on the Upper Yangtse and was returned to owners on 2nd November.

POWERS (JOINT NAVAL ACTION).

Mr. STEPHEN: 32.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to

The numbers of British, American, Japanese and French Warships in Chinese waters are as follow:—


—
British.
American.
Japanese.
French.


Cruisers
…
…
4*
1
1
1


Aircraft Carriers
…
…
1
—
—
—


Destroyers
…
…
9
8
1
—


Minesweepers
…
…
2†
1‡
—
1


Depot Ships
…
…
3§
—
—
—


Submarines
…
…
12
—
—
—


Sloops
…
…
4
—
—
—


River Gunboats
…
…
15
9
10
6


Launches
…
…
3
—
—
—


Surveying Ships
…
…
2
—
—
—


Yachts
…
…
—
1
—
—


Special Service Ships
…
…
—
—
1
—


Despatch Vessels
…
…
—
—
—
1


* One other cruiser ("Durban") is absent from the station at the present time, but is now en route for China, and is due at Hong Kong on 15th January.


† One is employed as a Despatch Vessel, and the other as a Submarine Tender.


‡ American minesweepers are sometimes referred to as gunboats or minesweeping gunboats.


§ Includes "Tamar" which is a stationary bulk at Hong Kong.

Details of Warships in excess of numbers usually stationed in Chinese waters and their time of arrival.

British.—The aircraft carrier and the destroyers are reinforcements which joined the China Squadron in October.

American.—The Americans have had in Chinese waters:

1 cruiser,
8 destroyers
in excess of normal since the beginning of October.

French.—There has been no addition to the Far Eastern Division this year.

the joint naval action of the Powers in China, how many British, French, American, and Japanese warships, respectively, are now in Chinese waters; how many of these warships are in excess of the numbers of foreign warships usually stationed in Chinese waters when these additional warships were sent to Chinese waters; and how long it is expected that they will remain there?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: As the answer is very long, and contains many figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, have it circulated in tile OFFICIAL REPORT.

The reply is as follows:

Japanese. —The Japanese have in Chinese waters two ships in excess of normal, at present:

1 destroyer,
1 special service ship.

I cannot say for what period ships in excess of normal may be expected to remain.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

FILM "FALKLAND."

Colonel DAY: 20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what percentage of
takings or profits the Admiralty will receive from the bookings or engagements of the film "Falkland"?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Davidson): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my statement of the 24th November—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 383–4)—to the effect that it would not be in the public interest to give such details.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any bookings have been obtained for this film?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I require notice of that question.

Colonel DAY: That is the point of the question. That was the same answer as I had before—that the hon. Gentleman would like notice. I have now put the question on the Paper and the hon. Gentleman gives me the same reply.

Mr. DAVIDSON: That is not the question on the Paper. The question on the Paper is whether f would say what percentage of takings or profits the Admiralty would receive?

MEDICAL BOARDS (APPEALS).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a naval rating, brought to survey before a naval medical Board composed entirely of medical officers and invalided by that Board, is under present Regulations able to state his case or appeal against the decision to an executive authority before being discharged from the Royal Navy?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: A naval rating who is brought to survey is provided with a form upon which he may state his case. This statement is considered by the Board of Survey and forwarded with their report to the executive authority who ordered the survey. The invaliding of the rating does not become effective until 28 days after the decision on the recommendation of the medical Board and the interval therefore affords an opportunity to the rating to appeal to the executive authority.

Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the old procedure, which gave the man the opportunity of Personally stating his case, was keenly appreciated by the men?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I believe there is a representation coming up from the Welfare Committee on the subject in a few days. We shall certainly consider fully that point with others that are raised.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir B. FALLE: 27.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the men of the Royal Navy pay the contribution to the Widows',, Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Fund under the Act of 1925, and that their widows receive practically no benefit therefrom if the rating loses his life in the service of the Crown, while the widow of a civilian in similar circumstances receives the full benefit of the Act and a further cash payment up to £600 as compensation; and if he will have this arrangement altered and place the ratings' widows in a similar position to civilians' widows?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have been asked to reply. I may point out that the £600 alluded to in the question is not a sum payable by the Crown but by private employers. It, therefore, does not raise the question of the payment of two pensions in respect of the same incident out of funds provided by or contributed to by the State. This matter was fully discussed when the Pensions Bill was in Committee of the Whole House, and the existing provisions were decided upon by Parliament with all the relevant facts before it.

Sir B. FALLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have no quarrel with the Contributory Pensions Act, but what we want altered is the Order in Council of November,]924, which can be altered to the advantage of the ratings?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that any widow whose husband has been killed while following his ordinary employment does not receive compensation at the same time that she is receiving a widow's pension under the 1925 Act?

Sir K. WOOD: I should not like to assent to that statement without further examination or perhaps qualification. As regards the other supplementary question any question relating to the procedure of the Admiralty should be put to the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. KELLY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his Department are refusing to pay widows' pensions to those who received compensation as a result of the submarine disaster which occurred recently?

Sir K. WOOD: That may, well be so; all I say is that I do not accept the statement made at this moment by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Obviously if hon. Members wish an exact statement on the matter I shall require notice.

EMPLOYÉS, MALTA.

Mr. KELLY: 28.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of employés in the service of the Admiralty at Malta in October, 1925, and October, 1926?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The total numbers of workpeople employed in the Admiralty service at Malta were 8,369 on 1st October, 1925, and 7,935 on 1st October, 1926.

Mr. KELLY: Have any representations been received from Malta with regard to the question of employment in the dockyard?

Mr. DAVIDSON: I should have notice of that question.

NAVAL VOLUNTEERS, HONG KONG.

Mr. KELLY: 29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, seeing that the Admiralty has been requested to send a warship to Hong Kong next year in furtherance of a scheme for the organisation of naval Volunteers in the Crown Colony, what authority would bear the cost of the upkeep of the ship and of the training of the personnel; and whether the scheme for the creation of such a naval organisation in the Far East has the approval of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The cost of upkeep of the minesweeper which it is under consideration to send to Hong Kong in connection with a scheme for the organisation of naval Volunteers at that port, and also the cost of training of the personnel, will be met from monies provided by the Hong Kong Government., if the scheme is eventually adopted. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative. This scheme is in accordance with our general policy of encouraging the
formation of local Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve units at certain ports throughout the Empire for purposes of local defence.

Mr. KELLY: Is this plan adopted in any other place?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say offhand whether exactly the same plan prevails in other places but, of course, there are Royal Naval Volunteer units in other places.

DISABILITY PERCENTAGE (Loss OF EYE).

Sir B. FALLE: 34.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what percentage of disability a naval rating is assessed at under the post-War Regulations for the loss of his right eye?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The degree of incapacity for the loss of an eye is assessed at 40 per cent.

Sir B. FALLE: 40 per cent. of what?

Mr. DAVI DSON: Of disability.

Colonel DAY: Is this a private conversation?

SINGAPORE BASE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what works have been undertaken in Singapore on behalf of His Majesty's Government during the current financial year; and what sums have been expended in connection therewith?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: No new works have been undertaken at Singapore during the current financial year. The estimated expenditure on work in progress from 1st April to 20th November is £102,000.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 24.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what special work has been undertaken, and with what cost, towards mitigating the mosquito pest which has impeded the work at Singapore?

Mr. DAVIDSON: The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the work has been impeded, since adequate steps were taken at the outset to prevent malaria by surface drainage and clearing. So far, about £12,000 has been spent on these operations.

HIS MAJESTY'S SHIP "CENTAUR" (PETTY OFFICERS' MESS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he
is aware that the chief petty officers' mess of His Majesty's Ship "Centaur" is so overcrowded that the occupants of the mess have to take their meals in relays; and whether he will take steps to relieve this crowding?

Mr. DAVIDSON: There are at present two more chief petty officers messing in the chief petty officers' mess than it is designed for, but some of these would always be on duty. It is therefore considered that there is no undue crowding, and no representations have reached the Admiralty to this effect. I may add that on recommissioning a reduction in chief petty officers will be made in accordance with the revised complement of this class of ship.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. OLIVER: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any steps have been taken to remedy the grievance of men who pay unemployment insurance and are denied benefit when out of employment on the ground that they receive a small income from other sources; and whether he will undertake that workpeople who are refused standard benefit on these grounds shall be exempted from unemployment contributions?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I am not clear

A.—TABLE showing the Number of Applications for Extended Benefit considered by Local Committees in Great Britain in 1926, with an Analysis of the Committees' Recommendations.


Period.
Applications considered.
Applications recommended for—
Applications postponed for a definite period.


Allowance.
Disallowance.


12th January to 8th February
…
…
282,181
235,114
43,835
3,232


9th February to 8th March
…
…
267,879
220,349
44,659
2,871


9th March to 12th April
…
…
280,996
230,958
47,211
2,827


13th April to 10th May
…
…
239,435
199,811
37,474
2,150


11th May to 13th June
…
…
304,288
262,186
40,123
1,979


14th June to 12th July
…
…
295,335
253,987
39,607
1,741


13th July to 9th August
…
…
305,189
263,518
39,781
1,890


10th August to 13th September
…
…
402,185
344,018
55,281
2,886


14th September to 12th October
…
…
330,729
278,374
49,844
2,511


13th October to 15th November
…
…
453,686
384,952
65,514
3,220


Total
…
…
3,161,903
2,673,267
463,329
25,307

what the hon. Member has in mind. If he could give me particulars of a specific case I should be happy to look into it.

Mr. OLIVER: May I draw attention to the fact that this Question was put down about 12 months ago, and it referred to men who play instruments in local bands in the evenings or who have small businesses which are looked after by their wives during working hours?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A good deal must depend in the circumstances of the case. It makes a difference whether the income to which the hon. Member refers is a fixed income or one from employment which may not be continuous. If he will communicate with me I will go into the matter.

Mr. SHORT: 41 and 42.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number of claims for extended benefit in each month of the current year, and the number of claims disallowed;
(2) How many claims for unemployment benefit have been rejected during the present year, with an analysis of the reasons for such rejection.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the replies to these questions involve a considerable number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate statements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The following are the statements:

B.—TABLE giving an Analysis of the Decisions on Claims for Benefit Disallowed during 1926.


(1) Decisions by Chief Insurance Officer.


Grounds of disallowance.
Number of claims disallowed.


Claim not made in prescribed manner
…
…
…
…
551


Not, unemployed
…
…
…
…
9,663


Not capable of work
…
…
…
…
4,671


Not available for work
…
…
…
…
2,031


Refusal of suitable employment
…
…
…
…
23,226


Not genuinely seeking work
…
…
…
…
87,665


Failure to attend courses of instruction
…
…
…
…
308


Trade disputes*
…
…
…
…
35,027


Lost employment through misconduct
…
…
…
…
50,651


Left employment Voluntarily without just cause
…
…
…
…
81,1607


In receipt of wages or payment
…
…
…
…
12,616


Other reasons
…
…
…
…
2,753


Total
…
…
…
…
310,769


The figures under this heading refer largely to test cases, and the number of claims affected by the decisions is considerably greater.

(2) Recommendations by Local Committees on claims for Extended Benefit.


Grounds of disallowance.
Number of claims disallowed.


Not normally insurable and not seeking to obtain a livelihood by means of insurable employment.
31,838


Insurable employment not likely to be available
17,397


Not a reasonable period of insurable employment during the preceding two years.
149,311


Not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment or not willing to accept suitable employment.
121,460


Single persons residing with relatives to whom they can look for support
76,595


Married women living with husbands to whom they can look for support
23,455


Married men living with wives to whom they can look for support
2,254


Short-time workers earning sufficient for maintenance
40,868


Aliens
148


Total definitely recommended for disallowance
463,329


Postponed for a definite period
25,307

BENEFIT CLAIM, BIRMINGII.AM.

Mr. SHORT: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to give a decision in the case of Mr. Richard Boyse, of Tipton, whose case was raised with the divisional officer, Birmingham, on 31st May, 1926?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have ascertained that when this claim was made last May it was found to involve a doubtful question of insurability, and the applicant was advised to allow his claim to remain in abeyance pending the
decision of a test case which was being dealt with separately. Unfortunately, the claim was subsequently overlooked, and, as far as I can discover, the applicant did not make any move in the matter. The ease is to be considered by the local employment Committee in the next day or two, and I will let the hon. Member know the result.

SEASONAL WORKERS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour if, when further legislation affecting unemployment insurance
is taken in hand, he will reconsider the position of purely seasonal workers, among whom there is dissatisfaction over the need for enforced contributions without adequate corresponding benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The matter is one of those which are under consideration by Lord Blanesburgh's Committee.

ENGINEERING TRADE.

Mr. KELLY: 47.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workpeople who are registered at the Employment Exchanges as being unemployed from the engineering trade?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: At 25th October, 1926, the total number of persons in the various branches of the engineering industry recorded at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain as unemployed, was 160,427, or 16.2 per cent., of the estimated number of insured persons in that industry.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these figures include workmen engaged in the construction of vehicles, many of whom are engineering mechanics?

Mr. KELLY: Does it also include people engaged in the machine toof industry?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: H hon. Members will communicate with me, I will endeavour to ascertain such further details as are desired.

RELIEF (ROAD WORK).

Sir W. de FRECE: 56.
asked the Minister of Transport if applications for the Unemployment Grants Committee are still being received and transmitted by his Department; whether there are in respect of road work any special conditions, and, if so, of what nature, to which these applications must conform?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The Unemployment Grants Committee no longer make grants to road and bridge works. Any applications still submitted to the Committee in respect of road or bridge works are now referred to my Department, so that it may be considered whether they are suitable for grants from the Road Fund. If grants are made from the Road Fund, the ordinary conditions attaching to such grants are applied.

MATCH FACTORIES (WAGES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will insert in the next issue of the "Labour Gazette" statement showing the general level of wages paid to workpeople in match factories in Belgium expressed as a percentage of the general level of wages prevailing in match factories in this country?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information in my possession does not provide a wholly satisfactory basis for the publication of comparable statistics in the Ministry of Labour Gazette, but I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend a statement giving such particulars as are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.

Mr. GEORGE THORNE: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to inform the House when a Speaker's Committee is toe he set up to consider the question of electoral reform and equal franchise for men and women?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): As I have already stated, all questions connected with equal franchise are under consideration by the Government and I am not in a position to make any statement in regard to it.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: When will the Prime Minister be able to make a statement?

Mr. THORNE: Is it not the case that the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, specifically related to equal franchise? My question also asks about electoral reform. Is that matter also under the consideration of the Cabinet?

The PRIME MINISTER: The question about equal franchise is the question which I answered.

Mr. THORNE: My question refers to electoral reform also.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry that is not included in the answer given. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Captain BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we may expect a decision to be announced?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. Sir.

Miss WILKINSON: Is the Prime Minister bearing in mind the very definite pledges given on this matter?

The PRIME. MINISTER: I quite sympathise with hon. Members who always take the liveliest interest in other peoples pledges. I shall bear that in mind:

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT UNITS.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the fact that the Army Anti-Aircraft Regular and Territorial units are stationed in the area of London and neighbourhood, and that no units are stationed in the Midlands and industrial areas, while the aircraft units are distributed differently, he will so present the Estimates that a discussion can take place on air defence as a whole?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid there would be practical difficulties in the way of a common discussion but ample opportunities should arise when the Army and Air Estimates, are under consideration for covering the whole subject of air defence.

FATAL ACCIDENTS.

Colonel DAY: 48.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the number of disasters resulting in lass of life to officers and men of the Royal Air Force during the 12 months preceding the last convenient date, stating the number of aircraft involved that were of War-time design and the number that were of post-War design, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): During the 12 months ending 22nd November, 1926, there have been 54 fatal accidents in the Royal Air Force. Of these 36 occurred on aircraft of types in service before the end of the War and 18 on types brought into service after the War. The number of hours flown on machines of "Wartime" design was, however, very much greater than that flown on machines of "post-War" design, and there is no ground for believing that the older types of machine still in use are more liable to accident than those of more modern design.

FLIGHT TO CAPE (OFFICIAL ACCOUNT).

Colonel DAY: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Air when the official Report of Wing-Commander W. H. Pulford, dealing with the flight to the Cape and back, will be published?

Sir S. HOARE: The official account of the flight has now hen published.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIR ALAN COBHAM'S FLIGHT (AUSTRALIAN OIL).

Mr. J. HUDSON: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Sir Alan Cobham was prevented from using the petrol which the Australian Commonwealth public refineries at Sir Alan's request had deposited at the necessary landing points of the flight through Australia by a notification from the oil companies that if Australian oil was used, they would refuse to let him have the petrol he would need on the return flight to London; and whether, in the interests of civil aviation, he proposes to take any action with these oil companies when further contracts for the supply of oil to the British Government are being considered?

Sir S. HOARE: I have no official information on this subject.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question repeats the facts given exactly in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia, and does he not consider it his duty, in the interests of the Empire, to discover the extent of the action of the oil companies in interfering with this great Imperial enterprise of Sir Alan Cobham?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I do not think it is my duty. I have no official information. If the hon. Member wishes me to obtain official information, I am quite willing to do so, bur I entirely repudiate the suggestion in the supplementary question he has just asked.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the statement made by Mr. Bruce in the House of Representatives in Australia on the 3rd August on this subject, and could he not make inquiries and publish the facts to the people of this country, giving the names of the capitalist patriots who did this?

Sir S. HOARE: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given. I have no official information.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will give you it.

Mr. HUDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries from the Australian authorities regarding this matter?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Ask Bruce for it.

Sir S. HOARE: I will consider that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled, on an important matter of this kind, to have a direct answer from the Government as to whether they will or will not get this information?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Government are entitled to say that they will consider the question. The hon. Member can put down another question later.

Mr. HUDSON: I give notice that I will put the question down again.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROTECTION FROM AERIAL BOMBING (LONDON).

Mr. THURTLE: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if his Department is collecting information as to the extent of underground accommodation existing in London suitable for providing protection from the effects of aerial bombing?

Sir S. HOARE: This matter does not come within the scope of my Department, but I have been asked to say in reply that it would not be in the public interest to give the information requested in this particular case.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public anxiety on this matter, and will he not, in order to allay that public anxiety, make a statement on the subject?

Sir S. HOARE: No, I can add nothing to the answer I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (HOT WATER SUPPLY).

Colonel APPLIN: 52.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department., as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, seeing that
the coal restrictions have been removed, he will restore to Members of this House the facilities for the use of hot water they formerly enjoyed?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): Arrangements have been made for the hot water facilities to be restored.

Colonel APPLIN: Can my hon. and gallant Friend inform the House what by saving of coal, if any, has been effected by this restriction?

Mr. SEXTON: Is it not a fact that that section of the House which is known as His Majesty's Government is, as it ought to be, always in hot water?

Oral Answers to Questions — CASUAL WARD. KINGSTON.

Mr. W. BAKER: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Kingston Cuardians have now complied with the order of his Department to reopen their casual ward; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: My right. hon. Friend is in communication with the guardians on this matter, and he hopes that it will he unnecessary to have recourse to the issue of an Order.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILK AND DAIRIES ORDER, 1926.

Mr. FENBY: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the importance of the Milk and Dairies Order, dated 6th July, 1926, an opportunity will be afforded Parliament to discuss its provisions?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to arrange for the granting of special facilities for the discussion of the Order, but opportunities for such a discussion may arise in the ordinary course of Parliamentary business.

Mr. FENBY: If the full rigour of the Order is to be enforced,, will the hon. Gentleman consider the finding of credit on easy terms for those badly affected by this Order, so far as the reconstruction of buildings is concerned, and, secondly—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to have it in writing. Will he, please, hand it in?

Oral Answers to Questions — PASSENGER TRAINS (GOODS WAGONS).

Mr. W. BAKER: 55.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the Government Regulations place any limit upon the number of goods trucks or the total tonnage which may be linked together in one train?

Colonel ASHLEY: This is a matter for which the railway companies themselves are responsible, and there are no Government Regulations on the subject, except that the Regulations with regard to continuous brakes on passenger trains made under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, incidentally limit the number of ordinary goods wagons on such trains.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

PIT-HEAD PRICES.

Mr. D. GREENALL: 62.
asked the secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the statement of pithead prices published this week; and whether he will issue a statement showing what part of the 50s. per ton is represented by actual costs of production, and what is the relative cost of producing this coal as compared with the figures shown in his Department's returns for April last?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I have seen statements in the Press about pit-head prices, but I have no information as to the various and varying costs of production at such collieries as may be charging 50s. per ton for certain classes of coal.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman in his possession the pit-head price for all the areas previous to the coal stoppage?

Colonel LANE FOX: No. The figures may be varying almost from hour to hour.

Mr. PALING: Is it not possible to answer the last part of the question, to take those pits which are charging 50s. a ton and to show the figures asked for?

Colonel LANE FOX: No. I have said on several occasions that the conditions vary in every pit, and a statement made about one pit would not necessarily give correct information about another.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Allowing for the alleged variations in the prices of coal at the pit-head, pre-stoppage and at the present time, is it not a fact that the average difference is simply enormous, more than twice, and in some cases three times, higher now than pre-stoppage, and cannot the Government do something to prevent this exploitation of the consumers and the miners?

Colonel LANE FOX: The prices, as I have said, are going down steadily all over the country, and we could not form any estimate, from what is happening at this moment, as to what would happen next week. There is a steady fall in prices at this moment, and that is certain to continue.

Mr. GREENALL: If I repeat this question a week to-day, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give approximately the cost of coal sold at 50s. a ton?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Gentleman cannot expect me to give a figure which will be accurate and applicable to all collieries.

Mr. GREENALL: Approximately within 5 or 10 per cent.

Colonel LANE FOX: Approximate figures are very dangerous things to give.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Will the usual quarterly statistical summaries be published later on in respect of those pits which have been working during the general stoppage?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes; as soon as the figures can be accurately stated, they will be circulated.

EMERGENCY POWERS (PROSECUTIONS, DONCASTER.).

Mr. PALING: 69.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can state the number of persons against whom proceedings have been taken under the Emergency Powers Act Regulations in the Doncaster Borough Police Court and the Doncaster West Riding Court, respectively; how many convictions were recorded, how many appeals were lodged against such convictions; and how many of the appeals were successful?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): Only one person was proceeded against in the Doncaster Borough Police Court. He was ordered to pay 10s. costs and did not appeal. In the Doncaster West Riding Court proceedings were taken against 161 persons; 145 were convicted and 16 cases were dismissed. 88 appeals were lodged; 24 were dismissed, nine were successful, and in 54 cases the sentences were modified, in many cases the defendants being simply bound over.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (IMPORTS).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the actual commodities and goods and the sterling amounts of the imports into Palestine from 1st January, 1926, to date; and which imports are British and which are Dominion and foreign?

STATEMENT SHOWING THE TOTAL VALUE OF IMPORTS INTO PALESTINE DURING THE SEVEN MONTHS PERIOD 1ST JANUARY TO 31ST JULY, 1926, DISTINGUISHING THE PRINCIPAL
CLASSES OF MERCIIANDISE.



Food, Drink and Tobacco.
Raw Materials and Articles mainly unmanufactured.
Articles wholly or mainly manufactured.
Miscellaneous and Unclassified Articles.
Total Merchandise.
Bullion and Specie.
Grand Total.



£ E.
£ E.
£ E.
£ E.
£ E.
£ E.
£ E.


United Kingdom (Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
29,742
10,394
254,204
138,095
432,435
—
432,435


Other parts of the British Empire.
50,523
5,326
13,463
1,441
70,753
271
71,024


Foreign Countries
963,786
251,539
1,929,885
120,477
3,265,687
4,898
3,270,585


Grand Total
1,044,051
267,259
2,197,552
260,013
3,768,875
5,169
3,774,044

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

TEMPORARY SORTERS (CHRISTMAS).

Mr. AMMON: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the shortening of the period of training for temporary sorters engaged for the Christmas season, seeing that such apparent economy would work out with disadvantage to the public by unnecessary delays and possible loss of correspondence owing to insufficient training?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have had a table prepared which summarises the information desired up to the latest available period. With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. WISE: What percentage is British?

Mr. SAMUEL: The total amount of imports for the first seven months of 1926 from all sources is about £3,750,000. About £500,000 is British, which includes Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Dominions. It must be borne in mind that about £1,000,000 of the total of £3,750,000 is fur food.

Sir F. WISE: Does that include bullion?

Mr. SAMUEL: Yes. The bullion imported into Palestine would be just under £5,000, and nearly all from non-British sources.

Following are the figures:

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): Careful consideration was given to the question of the appropriate period of training for temporary sorters before the instructions applicable to the coming Christmas season were promulgated. In view of the simplification of the duties to be performed by casual force, I anticipate that the shortened period will prove ample.

Mr. AMMON: Is there any difference between the duties now and two or three years ago, when there was considerable confusion and delay at Christmas time, and is not this likely to be repeated?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No; the duties, as I have stated, have been very considerably simplified.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MAIL SERVICES).

Mr. MACQUISTEN: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the mail services to the island of Tirce and to Ardnamurchan and Coll, the Kyles of Bute, and various other parts of Argyll have been reduced in some cases to one-third of the customary number, to the loss, injury, and damage of the inhabitants of these parts; and whether he will insist on immediate restoration of the customary services?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I regret the necessity for the temporary restriction of the mail service to the islands in question. I am informed by the contractors that they will be in a position to resume the normal services on or before the 13th December.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not the case that they kept the normal services up throughout the summer-time, even though coal was more expensive than it is now; and is it not also the case that they are in negotiation for a new contract just now, and are they not using this means of bringing pressure on the Postmaster-General?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer?

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is now in a position to state the result: of his communications with the contractors regarding the early restoration of the normal mail service to the Western Isles; and, if not, whether he will insist upon an immediate resumption of the normal service to all the islands?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am informed by the contractors that they will he in a position to resume the normal services on or before the 13th December.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the Minister aware that in the Highlands and Islands there is a growing impression that the Government feel more concern for the
profits of this company than for the welfare of the people in those districts?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can assure the hon. Member that that impression, if it exists, which I rather doubt, is entirely erroneous.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is the Minister pot aware that by the system of giving a subsidy to one steamboat company, without any control or restrictions over it, he is giving it all the advantages and leading to all the abuses of nationalisation coupled with all the cupidity of private enterprise?

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: May the House know from the Postmaster-General whether he has allowed this shipping company to break its own contract with him?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: No, Sir; I have already explained that under the circumstances it was impossible to force them to perform services which they could not perform.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: I would like to press this point. Does that mean that the Government are more concerned for the profits of that company than for the welfare of the highland people?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: rose.—

Mr. SPEAKER: The last question was rather argumentative.

ORKNEY AND SHETLAND (MAIL SERVICE).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 65.
asked the Postmaser-General whether, having regard to the removal of the embargo on coastwise bunkers, he can now state when the full mail service to Orkney and Shetland will be resumed; and whether it is intended to revise the terms of the Serabster, Scapa, and Stromness mail contract?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The full normal winter services to Orkney and Shetland will be resumed next week. I do not think there is any occasion for disturbing the existing arrangements for the conveyance of mails between Serabster, Scapa and Stromness.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is desirable that the existing contract should be overhauled?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I think I cart hardly discuss the matter by question and answer, but I shall be very glad to talk to my hon. Friend about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give figures showing the aggregate profits of sugar-beet companies during the last few years and for six months of the current official year?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): In accordance with Section 2 of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, balance sheets of the various companies have been laid before Parliament as White Papers No. 163 of 1925 and No. 133 of 1926. These show the position of the companies up to 3Ist March last.. I am not in a position to add anything to the information contained therein.

LATE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (VISIT TO DENMARK).

Mr. FENBY: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any Report was presented to his Department or to His Majesty's Government as the result of the visit of the late Minister of Agriculture to Denmark last. year; and, if so, whether the Report will be published?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 8th March last to the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. C. Wilson), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET COLLECTIONS, METROPOLITAN AREA.

Sir ROBERT GOWER: 68.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the operation of the Regulations regarding street collections in the Landon Metropolitan area made by him on 1st October last is such as to rescind the power theretofore possessed by the Commissioner of Police to grant permits for collections to be made on behalf of London hospitals and other charities by friendly society organisations, such as the North London' Phoenix Temperance
Hospital Society, in connection with their Sunday processions; and whether, having regard to the circumstance that collections in connection with such processions have been made for many years without inconvenience to the public and have resulted in considerable sums being raised for London hospitals, he will consider the desirability of amending such Regulations so as to enable the Commissioner of Police to grant permits allowing such collections in such cases and subject to such conditions as he may think proper?

Captain HACKING: Before 1920 collections accompanying moving precessions were entirely prohibited. In 1920 the Regulations were am-ended so as to allow collecting processions in special cases, but experience has shown that these processions are liable to cause so much disturbance and interference with traffic that it was decided to amend the Street Collection Regulations so as to prohibit the practice. My right hon. Friend is sorry to have to put any obstacle in the way of collections for good objects, but the London traffic problem is now such that other considerations must be subordinated to traffic considerations.

Sir FRANK MEYER: Can the bon. Member tell us what advantage there is in processions of this nature at any time?

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not the fact that these processions have resulted in large sums of money being collected for hospitals?

Captain HACKING: It is perfectly true that large sums of money have been collected in the past.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAM LORRIES (SPARKS AND SMOKE).

Mr. W. BAKER: 70.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will give instructions that owners of steam lorries should he warned against allowing such vehicles to emit steam, smoke, or sparks?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been asked to answer this question. The enforcement of the existing law is a matter for the police. I am of opinion that action on the lines suggested at the present moment would be unfortunate, as it has
been brought to my notice that the recent increase in the emission of smoke by steam vehicles is due to the fact that owing to the coal stoppage the owners of these vehicles have found it impossible to obtain suitable fuel.

Mr. MARCH: Is it not a fact that what has happened was due to the shortage of police on duty, long before the coal stoppage, and their not taking this matter seriously in hand?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, the answer I have given is that the shortage of fuel, and the use of inferior fuel, is the cause of this.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that the fuel raised sufficient steam to force this emission of sparks?

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, on account of the coal dispute, the enactments that cover various types of vehicles on the road were automatically repealed; and, if not, will he see that the powers which are presumed to exist under the Act are put into operation?

Colonel ASHLEY: All I say is that temporarily and owing to the exceptional circumstances the Regulations are not enforced, but directly things are normal they will be enforced.

Mr. CHARLETON: The question brackets together steam, sparks and smoke. Is it not a fact that there is not enough carbon in the foreign coal to permit sparks to be raised from it; and that as they are always short of steam there cannot have been much steam?

Mr. MARCH: Like the Government, it is all smoke.

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member's statement is correct, it shows how much better British coal is than foreign coal.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABSENT VOTERS LIST (CRIPPLES AND INVALIDS).

Mr. FORREST: 71.
asked the Home Secretary whether in any coming Franchise Bill, which may be introduced, he will consider the desirability of placing
on the absent voters list all invalids and cripples who are either not able to reach the place of polling or to leave their houses?

Captain HACKING: This point has been noted for consideration when the question of the amendment of the present Act is taken up.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINKING FUND (GOVERNMENT LOANS).

Sir F. WISE: 72.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated Sinking Fund for 1926–27 on Government loans issued with a compulsory sinking fund agreement?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): It is not practicable to make any close estimate of the amounts required for the Depreciation Fund for 4 per cent. War Loan, 1929–42, or for Victory and other Bonds surrendered for Death Duties. The other specific Sinking Fund payments amount to about £26½; millions.

Oral Answers to Questions — LECKHAMPTON QUARRIES, LIMITED.

Captain CAZALET: 73.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the appointment of a receiver to the Leckhampton Quarries. Limited; what steps the Treasury took before sanctioning the loan of £110,000 of public money to this concern; and whether, in view of the financial failure of the company, he will grant a full and impartial inquiry into the matter?

Mr. McNEILL: I am aware that a receiver has been appointed in this case. The guarantee of debenture capital to a total of £100,500 was given on the recommendation of the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee. The reply to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask whether the Government have a first charge on these quarries?

Captain CAZALET: 74.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he is aware that certain officers sent in their papers and commuted their pensions to invest money and obtain work in the Leckhampton Quarries, Limited; and whether, in view of the fact that these officers have now lost their occupations and their money, any consideration will be given to the possibility of granting them redress?

Mr. McNEILL: I am not aware what redress is possible for the officers in the circumstances stated. It is obvious that they have no claim against the company's creditors, of which the Government is one.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGANYIKA.

AMANI INSTITUTE.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken to put in order the buildings at Amani?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. OrmsbyGore): Arrangements were made some time ago for the repair of the house of the Director and of other buildings at Amani, in order that there may be no delay when the newly appointed staff arrive.

GERMAN NATIONALS.

Mr. RAMSDEN: 78.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of German nationals who have taken up their residence in Tanganyika; the number of applicants who are awaiting permission to enter; and whether he is aware that a German organisation exists which will advance half the capital for any properties acquired?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend has not, yet received the report from the Governor for which he called, but he is asking that it may be expedited.

CANADA-WEST INDIES (STEAMSHIP SERVICE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 77.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether that part of the Canada-West Indies Trade Agreement of 1925 which provided for an adequate steamship service has been carried out?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, Sir, that part of the Agreement has not yet been brought into effect, but the matter is under consideration by the Canadian Government.

Mr. RAMSDEN: May I ask whether representations have been made to the Canadian Government inviting them to carry out their obligations?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not not know that I should put it quite like that. My hon. Friend has noted that the Prime Minister of Canada made some reference t. the matter in a speech at the Imperial Conference.

KENYA (IMPORTS AND EXPORTS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 79.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the quantity, in tons, of imports and exports, respectively, through the ports of Mombasa-Kilindini in 1925?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In 1925 the shipping tonnages of exports and imports handled at Kilindini pier totalled 130,522 tons and 207,486 tons, respectively. 92,77; shipping tons of exports were handled at M'baraki pier.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN.

WILLIAM HENTON CARVER, esquire, for the County of York, East Riding (Howdenshire Division).

Lieut.-Commander JOSEPH MONTAGUE KENWORTHY, commonly called Lieut.-Commander the hon. Joseph Montague Kenworthy, for the Borough of Kingstonupon-Hull (Central Division).

LEGITIMACY BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect. of the Mental Deficiency Bill [Lords]): Mr. Ammon, Sir George Berry, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, Mr. Rhys Davies, Dr. Vernon Davies, Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir George Hume, Mr. Charles Williams, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Commitee C: Mr. Rentoul and Mr. Viant; and had appointed substitution: Mr. Cove and Mr. Haslam.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN AND COLONIAL DIVORCE JURISDICTION BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In 1869, the Indian Legislature passed an Act, which was based very largely on the English Act of 1857, and empowered certain courts to make decrees of dissolution of marriage and to grant other reliefs in matrimonial causes to suitors who professed the Christian religion and were residing in India at the time of presenting the petition, if the marriage had been solemnised in India or the matrimonial offence was committed there. Until the year 1921, it was assumed that the Indian courts had full jurisdiction over Europeans who, although, perhaps, they spent the greater part of their lives in India, were actually domiciled in this country. That class of people included, of course, the majority of European civil servants, and others in business who spent their lives there. That was the position until the year 1921. In that year—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the Minister to read his speech?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be more in order for hon. Members to listen.

Mr. STEPHEN: On that point of Order. May I ask whether the Noble Lord is in order in reading his speech, as he has been doing?

Mr. SPEAKER: When a technical and legal question is being dealt with, it is necessary to get the matter accurate. This is quite a different case from that of speeches made by hon. Members in the course of debate.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not a fact that the Commons make due allowance for a Lord?

Mr. SPEAKER: I trust that the hon. Member will make allowance for any of his fellow Members.

Earl WINTERTON: I assure the House that I have not the least desire to break any rule. I do not want to read my speech, but, when one is dealing with highly technical legal points, especially when there is a great deal of conversation going on in the House, it is necessary, in order to ensure an accurate report of a speech which will probably appear in the Indian papers, to refresh one's memory by referring to one's notes.
I was dealing with the situation as it was until a decision which was given by the President of the Divorce Court in 1921. The effect of that decision was that decrees of dissolution, if granted to persons not domiciled in India, though they might be valid in India—a question which Lord Merrivale said he was not called upon to decide—could not be recognised by the courts, of this country. I want to make it quite clear at the outset that anything that I am saying must not be taken as commenting upon, or criticising in any way, the decision which was given by the learned Judge on that occasion, but the judgment undoubtedly did give rise to great doubts and confusion in India. The situation immediately following it was that some of the High Courts, having taken the strictest view of its consequences, felt themselves debarred by it from entertaining petitions at all from non-domiciled Europeans in India, while other High Courts, on the contrary, in other provinces, believed that the judgment did not preclude them from granting dissolution of marriage to non-domiciled Europeans, though, of course, it was obvious from the judgment that those decrees would not be valid in this country.
That was obviously an unsatisfactory situation. The result of it has been, or was until quite recently, that spouses have been divorced in one province and are still matrimonially bound, or possibly may be living in a bigamous state, in an adjoining province. This confusion which has arisen, the Bill proposes to cure by Clause 3, which repeats the provision of the Indian Divorces (Validity) Act. 1921. The recurrence of a similar situation has been prevented by an Act passed in India this year, amending the Act of 1869 so as to remove all doubt that jurisdiction under the Act is confined to persons domiciled in India. The House may ask,
that being so, and the Legislature in India and in this country having adjusted the different difficulties that arose as a consequence of this unexpected but doubtless perfectly proper judicial decision in 1921, what is the need for bringing in further amending legislation? I can explain that very shortly, and I think that, when I have explained it, the House will be satisfied that the action which the Secretary of State and the Government have taken is the right one.
I ought to say here that we are not concerned with what are usually known as India's "teeming millions." We are not concerned with either the Hindu or the Mohammedan inhabitants of the country; we are solely concerned with that body of persons to whom I have already referred, namely, Europeans who are not domiciled in India, but who spend the greater part of their lives there. This population and the forebears have been able, for almost as long as the procedure for the dissolution of marriage by civil Courts has existed in this country—except for the period of some nine or ten years between the time when the first Divorce Act was passed in this country and the time when a corresponding Act was passed in India—have been able to apply to the Courts in India for relief in matrimonial causes when the cause of offence arose in that country, and, unless we were to pass this Bill, we should he in the position of denying to those persons the facilities they have always enjoyed as a result of the Indian Act, until the decision in the Divorce Court here to which I have already referred. If we do not give these facilities, European inhabitants of India who wish to have recourse to divorce would either have to undertake the expense of transporting their evidence a, distance of something like 6,000 miles to this country, or they would have to adopt what I am informed on the best legal advice is the very hazardous course of relying upon commissions for taking their evidence in India, and having the case tried here. In these circumstances, my Noble Friend had no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing with the Government of India that the facilities enjoyed until 1921 by Europeans living in India—or, perhaps, the word "enjoyed" is scarcely a correct
term; I should say the facilities that were open—should he restored at the earliest possible opportunity.
Now I come to one delicate matter which I must mention, although I trust my references to it w ill not open a controversy as, in my own opinion, it really has very little bearing on the Bill. That is the question whether or not this Bill extends the reasons for which divorce can be granted, or whether it does not, and whether it is desirable to do so. My answer to that question is that it only extends the grounds for divorce to a very small extent, and it does so in this way. The Bill, by specifying the grounds now to be admissible in India as being the same which are admissible in England, does give the right to petitioning wives in India to sue on the ground of adultery alone, as they can here. That is not the law as it stands at present in India, but, except in that particular, there will be no extension, as a result of the passing of this Bill, of the grounds for divorce in India.
4.0 p.m.
The only other point of substance with which I have to deal is one on which objection, and, I admit, serious objection, has been taken, though I think I can show that. The objection is ill -founded. It is that the Bill recognises the English and not the Scots law of divorce when application is made under it to the Indian Courts. I am well aware of the very proper importance which hon. Members of all parties representing constituencies North of the Tweed pay, when questions affecting their country or status are being discussed in the House, to having a Minister representing Scotland to deal with them, and I have therefore asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to reply to any points which may he made by those who may be dissatisfied with the case which I am about to put. At the same time, although I am neither a Scotsman, except perhaps as to one-fifth of my blood, nor a lawyer, I hope, in the course of my speech in introducing the Bill, I shall satisfy any doubts which have been felt in the past. or which have been expressed in the Press and elsewhere on these points.
The first reason, in order of importance, in favour of the course taken in the Bill, and against the view which has
been expressed outside, is that it is an undoubted, though, of course, a regrettable, fact that there exists in India, whether on the Bench or at the Bar little or no practical experience of Scots law. It would be, I think—it is certainly the view taken by the Secretary of State —an almost impossible task if the Indian Courts and Bar were to be required, in dealing with applications for divorce from persons domiciled in Scotland, to apply in these causes, and in these causes alone, the intricacies of Scots law, and, without any disparagement of lawyers or Judges in India, I doubt whether the results would be always liable to satisfy the Scottish litigant. I do not think it can be reasonably argued, even if this disability were removed, that the Indian Courts should be forced to apply two separate systems of divorce law to European applicants in matrimonal causes. It must be remembered, in particular, that the Act will apply to a comparatively small proportion of subjects of the of the in India. It will, in the first place, apply only to the European community in India, and it is hoped that the number of members of that community, who will have recourse to the Courts, will not he larger than it has been in the past.

Colonel APPLIN: May I ask if it will not apply also to the Anglo-Indian community?

Earl WINTERTON: No, it will not apply to the Anglo-Indian community at all. They are not in any way affected. The Bill applies to those who are domiciled in this country, and Anglo-Indians are not domiciled in this country. I am sorry if any confusion has arisen from ray speech. The Bill applies to those Europeans who are technically domiciled in this country—it is a very legal or technical point—but who have spent the whole of their lives in India. Jones or Brown goes out to India as a civil servant at 22 and remains there until he is 55, but he never loses his English or Scottish domicile. It has nothing to do with the Anglo-Indian.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: Does it not rather depend upon what is meant by the term "Anglo-Indian." A man may reside in India, but retain his English domicile.

Earl WINTERTON: The old term "Eurasian," which was usually applied to the person of mixed European and Indian descent, has now been taken away, and the term "Anglo-Indian," which formerly was used to describe Europeans resident in India, has been applied to him. I was not using the term "Anglo-Indian" in the old sense. May I, in order to make it clear, say that used the word "European" as applied to Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen, and the term "Anglo-Indian" as applied to those of mixed European and Indian descent. That is now the official and proper term. The Bill only applies to Europeans. There might be some person of mixed European and Indian descent who was domiciled in this country. Personally, I know only about three or four, and they are all living in England, and I think it is safe to say that the Bill could not apply to them, except in some very rare case. Quite apart from the great disability that stands in the way of asking the Indian Bench and Bar to apply the Scots law, with which they are not familiar, it would be an inconvenient way of proceeding if we had two law for a comparatively small class of litigants. I must also add that a Scotsman in India is not entitled to sue under his own law. He can sue only under English or British Indian law. Further, for the last 50 years, from the passage of the original Indian Divorce Act in 1869, Scotsmen and Scotswomen resident in India have been subject, until the decision the other day, to the provisions of the British-Indian law, and though I have made careful search, I have not been able to find that any complaint has been made.
There is one other point in connection with the objections which have been raised to this Bill in Scotland. It is said that the fact that the Bill will not allow divorce in India on the ground of desertion is a disadvantage from the point of view of a Scotsman. There, again, if the grievance be a real one, why is it that we have never heard it voiced before this year as it might have been any time since 1869, when the original Indian Divorce Act was passed? I think there has never been any objection taken. I have no hestiation in saving, to sum up, that the decision of My Noble Friend and of the Government that the scheme would be made impracticable if it were conditioned on the application of a
different system of law and practice according to the domicile of the petitioner, and if the objection that Scotsmen resident in India are to be subjected to English law, although it has never been made before, and there has been something like a lapse of 50 years, were nevertheless just as valid, I should still say,. speaking with the weight and authority of the Government of India, and of the Secretary of State—and the Government of India have considered this matter very carefully—that the only reasonable way of meeting that objection would be to exclude from the scope of the Bill altogether persons living in India under the conditions I have described and domiciled in Scotland. I may say, as the House is aware, that the Scottish community in India is a most influential and important one. In Bombay and Calcutta, for example, a very large proportion of the European business men are Scotsmen. I have not the slightest doubt that there would be the greatest indignation if they were told that, as the result of opposition in some quarters in Great Britain, they were to be precluded from obtaining divorce in India, which is the only alternative.
There are one or two other points with which I ought to deal. It may be asked why is the Bill so framed to apply in the first instance only to persons domiciled in England, Wales, or Scotland, and not to other persons of European descent living in other parts of the Empire? My answer is, first, that five years have elapsed since the mischief to be cured arose, and it certainly would not brook the long delay which would be necessary if one were to approach all the different countries of the Empire and ask them to adopt the principle of the Bill, and, secondly, that the Bill, with its present scope, will cover the great majority of the population affected, because the great majority of the European population in India come from the British Isles. It is quite true that persons domiciled in Northern Ireland will obtain no benefit under the Bill, and will figure among those excluded, but the reason for that is that persons in Northern Ireland are not able to obtain divorce in their own country. Therefore, it seemed to my Noble Friend that there was no logical or reasonable
ground for giving them facilities in India which they do not possess in their own country.
There is one other point, or rather sub-point. It may be said that the remedy provided by the Bill, besides being available only to a limited number of persons, will be limited in its effect even where they are concerned, because, though it provides for the recognition of the decrees of Indian Courts by the Courts in England and Scotland, it will not ensure their recognition by the Courts of ether parts of the Empire or any foreign country. I do not think there is really very much in that objection. It is largely a theoretical objection. It really amounts to nothing more than admitting that this Parliament is not omnipotent. No doubt it would be more convenient if it were possible to make this Empire-wide legislation, but the time that would have been taken in negotiations would have rendered it impossible to bring the Bill forward at the present time. I hope it will be possible in the course of time to extend the Bill to other parts of the Empire if those countries are willing to adopt it, and if the Secretary of State for the Colonies, responsible for the representation of those countries in this House, is willing to apply it.
There is every safeguard in the Bill to see that its provisions are not abused and are judicially administered. The Indian Courts, which acquire jurisdiction under the Bill, are considerably more restricted than is the case with the Indian Act, which still applies to Christians domiciled in India and which empowers all High Courts and Courts of District Judges. The powers under this Bill are not merely confined to the High Courts, but they are confined to selected Judges of those Courts, and although, as I have said before, I am not a lawyer, I see no reason to think, as the result of past experience, that anything but the greatest confidence can be placed in the decisions which those selected Judges of the High Courts will give. I should add that when my Noble Friend was preparing this Bill he had the advice, as I have already said, not merely of the Government of India—that, of course, he would naturally seek in any case—but also of an expert Committee representing beside the India Office, the Colonial Office, the
Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department, and, perhaps most important of all, Lord Merrivale, the President of the Divorce Court, who gave the original decision.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Was the Scottish Office represented?

Earl WINTERTON: I am sorry. The hon. and gallant Member is quite right in correcting me for not having mentioned the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office was also represented. This Committee made the recommendation upon which this Bill is founded, so therefore I conclude, as I began, by saying the practical effect, which is really a very simple one, though the Title is somewhat lengthy and some of the provisions appear complicated, can be stated shortly. It is merely to legalise, with all possible safeguards, most carefully devised as the result of all sorts of expert advice, the facilities which have been held, erroneously no doubt, to be available for many years to Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotsmen resident in India and which,, as the result of the judgment in the Divorce Court, were found to be not so available, and the object of the Bill is to restore the position as it was before that decision.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I think this is a very badly-needed Bill, and I very much welcome its appearance. Indeed, I rather think it might have gone a little further than it does. If a man is residing in India—because the Bill has no application unless when a man who is presenting the petition is residing in India, —and when the offence on which the petition is founded has taken place in India, I should have thought it would be common sense that. the Bill should apply. But paragraph (d) provides that although the petitioner resides in India, and the offence may have been committed in India, and consequently all the evidence is procurable with the least expense in India, he cannot bring his action there if he is domiciled in England, unless he proves that by reason of his official duties, poverty, or any other sufficient cause, he is prevented from taking proceedings in the Courts of the country in which he is domiciled. I should have thought that is a very undue and not at all sensible limitation of the powers of the Bill. If it is right that a person who is resident in India at the
time he wants to petition, and the whole of whose evidence lies in India, but who happens to be domiciled in England, shall bring his suit in India, which is obviously the common-sense thing to do, why should there be any limitation to that right at all? If his duty keeps him in India, why should he come to England at all If it is a remedy that he is entitled to, it is a remedy to which there should be no limitation whatever.
I have only one doubt about the Bill which I want to suggest in order that perhaps at some time it may receive the consideration of the Government. The grounds on which a decree may he granted are those on which such a decree might be granted by the High Court in England, and therefore what you have to apply to the case being tried in India is solely the law of England, which is by no means of necessity the same as the law in India. I do not know if the Indian Courts, in considering matters of divorce between, say, Mohammedans or one of the castes of India consider the law of caste at all. I know that in Egypt, as far as the law of succession goes, the treaties between England and Egypt provide that the Egyptian Courts shall as far as possible apply the law of the religious community. I do not know if there is the same sort of rule in India. Suppose two Indian Mohammedans come and reside and carry on their business in England and consequently become domiciled here, and then return to their domicile of origin, India, and while they are there one has a cause of complaint against the other, and desires to present a petition for divorce, might it not be as well that the law of India should be applicable to their case and they should not be confined solely to the law of England? The law of India may not give any special remedy to Mohammedans or Mussulmans or a member of any sect who is seeking divorce in England, but if it does, it is worthy of consideration that these people would be deprived of the rights which the law of India gives them.. I suggest that paragraph (a) of 'Clause I should read something like this:
The grounds on which a decree for the dissolution of dissolution of such a marriage may he granted by any such Court should be those on which such a decree might be granted by the High Court of England, or if their domicile of origin is India, according to the law of India.
I think that would do no harm, and supposing such rights exist, they would be preserved.
A thing that is a very serious difficulty in the administration of English law is the fact that in questions of divorce, the Divorce Court has no jurisdiction over those who are domiciled in any other country, so that in England when the parties come before the Divorce Court, even though the offence may have been committed in this country and consequently all the evidence is available here, if the husband is domiciled in India or Australia or any other British Dominion, the parties have to return to the Colony in which they are domiciled and are put to all the expense and trouble of getting the evidence in England and sending it out. If it is right that this restriction as to domicile should be removed as to India, why should it not be removed as to England as well? I hope, if the Bill passes, the Government will take that into consideration. We are always talking now, very wisely and happily, about the increased unity of the Empire. It does not apply to restitution of conjugal rights, but if it is right that in India in divorce cases the Courts should have jurisdiction over those residing in India, though domiciled in another country, it would be equally right that the Courts in England should have jurisdiction over those domiciled in India. Surely what is good for one is good for the other. It would remove a great injustice in England because cases often come before the Courts in England, and it turns out that the parties, although British subjects, although in every case belonging to the Empire, happen to be domiciled ill Canada, Australia or some other British Dominion. This is a very much wanted reform in India, and it is equally wanted in England. I hope the Government will have time during the remainder of their, I hope, considerable term of office to take this question into consideration.

Captain BENN: I should have wished someone with legal knowledge would have spoken on this particular point of the Scottish question rather than myself, but it is a fact that this Bill has created some misgivings in Scotland, and not merely among the lay population. One
branch of the legal profession at least has circularised Members of Parliament on the subject. In principle, we all understand what the point is. It is whether married people who come before these Courts shall be treated in the matter of divorce according to the rules that prevail in their country of domicile, or according to the English rules. As against that contention, which prima facie has much to recommend it, the Under-Secretary advances two objections. He does not deny that it is an equitable demand. He does not say there is anything wrong, and the hon. Baronet the Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) has been asking for all sorts of Amendments to adjust a difference here and a difference there which, if they are well found. I, make an even stronger case than the Scottish demand. The Under-Secretary's first reason is that there has been no complaint for a number of years, and his second is that Scots law in reference to marriage is so complicated that it would be impossible for the Courts to administer it. I think those are very insufficient grounds. I am surprised to hear that among the eminent legal luminaries who are at the disposal under the Bill for deciding these cases, there are not those who can give judgment according to Scots law, and it is the more remarkable inasmuch as there is a very large Scottish population in India. He says that, if you pass this Bill, you come up against a very large population of Scots who will object to the action you are taking. If there are so many Scots in India, why not let the English people in India be judged according to Scots law instead of putting the Scottish people under a law that is totally alien to them? I should not like to pass even an elementary examination in the differences between the two matrimonial laws, but I know there are great differences as to the grounds of divorce and alimony and other questions of that kind. My wife, who is a Scotswoman, has often told me of the vast superiority of the Scottish marriage laws over the English.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Divorce is easier in Scotland.

Captain BENN: I must make further inquiries in the light of what the hon. Baronet says. The Under-Secretary may say it is going too far to oppose the
Second Reading, but I think he would gratify public opinion in Scotland in its just demands if he would say that in Committee he will favourably consider some amendment of the Bill to meet the case. If a case can be made, and an Amendment of a practical kind suggested in Committee, I ask that the Lord Advocate should promise to consider it.
Mr. K I DD: The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) has introduced this subject. Anything that I say is rather by way of inviting some observations from the Lord Advocate in regard to the Scottish position. Very strong representations have come from Scotland with respect to this Bill. Indeed, the only bodies which are really qualified to express an opinion are unanimous in their objections to the Bill. Those objections come, in the first place, from the Faculty of Advocates, who are unanimous in their objection. Another objection comes from the Society of His Majesty's Writers to the Signet, who again are unanimous, and with the same unanimity we have an objection from the Society of Procurators in Glasgow. All these bodies, and they represent the legal opinion of Scotland, are united in objecting to the Bill, first, fundamentally, and, secondly, in detail. What I would ask the Lord Advocate to do in reply is to give us some enlightenment upon several points. Will he state for the benefit of the House what is the difference, if any, between the law relating to divorce in England and the law relating to divorce in Scotland? Secondly, is there any difference in the law of England as against the law of Scotland with regard to the effect of divorce upon the estates of parties?
I see very little objection to the Bill from the Englishman's point of view. He is to have really the facilities of the Indian courts for the administration of English law. On the other hand, this Bill entirely subverts the law of domicile as far as Scotland is concerned. Here is a point which I have in mind, as belonging to the junior branch of the legal profession. The Lord Advocate will agree with me that in Scotland the effect of divorce upon the estate of the parties is really the same as the effect of death. Suppose there is a marriage contract between husband and wife; on divorce, the guilty party loses all rights
under the contract. Is that the law also in England? I want the Lord Advocate, before we are committed to a Bill which is so stubbornly opposed by every body in Scotland qualified to oppose it, by every body representative of opinion in Scotland on this matter, and while reserving one's rights to oppose the Bill in toto, to give us the information for which I have asked.
I also ask, finally, assuming this Bill be proceeded with—where Scottish domicile is to be subverted, where Scotsmen are to be subjected to a mixture of Indian procedure and English law—whether, if we are to make all these concessions, the Lord Advocate is prepared to conjoin the Lord President of the Court of Session with the Lord Chancellor in framing the Regulations for the conduct of such divorce? I do not want to speak with undue force, but I come back to this point, that the Englishmen have no real objection to the Bill, as far as I can see. All the valid objections must come from Scotland. The only injury being done is being done to Scotland. The only rights that are being jeopardised are the rights of the Scottish spouses, so to speak. For all these reasons, I trust the Lord Advocate will give us information in his reply which will satisfy the Faculties to which I have referred, and will allay the uncommonly keen resentment of Scotland as a whole towards the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Bill, as far as it goes, is a good Bill. I want to emphasise, very briefly, a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Basset-law (Sir E. Hume-Williams). In Clause 2, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, provide for applying the provisions of the Act, etc., to various parts of His Majesty's Dominions. The parts that are exempted from its application are the self-governing Dominions. I raise this point, because I wish the House to note that this Bill is not limited to India, although up to now the discussion has related entirely to India. It can be made, presumably, to apply to any Crown Colony. I am wondering why it has not been made to apply to the self-governing Dominions, and why steps have not been taken to arrange for that. I do not know whether it is reciprocal legislation or not, or whether this Parliament possesses the power to enact the necessary reciprocal
legislation. There are a great man people in this country suffering hardships and unable to release themselves from their husband or their wife as the case may be, although they have every justification for seeking divorce. They are unable to do so, because of this mystery known as domicile. I am sure that no one except a lawyer really understands what domicile means, and I am not certain that the lawyers really understand what it means.
I am thinking particularly of two cases in my own constituency, which have been brought to my notice. Possibly there are other cases in my constituency, and there must be a large number of other cases all over the country, of people who have married in this country, whose husbands have left them and have taken up residence in some other part of the Empire and, in some mysterious way, have acquired what is known as domicile in that part of the Empire. Accordingly, their wives—in the cases I have in mind wives are concerned—are unable to take any proceedings whatsoever in the English Courts to free themselves from their husbands, although they know that they have committed offences which would entitle the wife to obtain a divorce if the offence had been committed in this country, and if the husband were still domiciled in this country. The unfortunate thing is that in the bulk of these cases the hardship is Upon poor people. If they were well-to-do they could proceed to Australia, Canada or whatever part of the Empire it might he and initiate proceedings in the Courts there and obtain release, but being poor persons they are unable to bear the expense. Unfortunately, if they apply to the Poor Persons' Department at the Law Courts, that department is unable to assist them, because it can only assist them in respect of proceedings taken in the Courts at home. I hope that either in this Bill or in some future Bill steps may be taken to remove this injustice and the further injustice to which attention has been drawn by the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: As one who has bad to administer the divorce laws of a British Colony and has come up against the great difficulty caused by the question of domicile, I realise very fully, as I hope the House does, what
a great benefit this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will confer upon British people living in India. It has always seemed to me ridiculous that when people go to live in a Colony or in India and spend the best part of their lives there, 25 and 30 years perhaps, although their legal domicile may be in England or Scotland, that they should not be able to get a remedy for an offence under the divorce laws in the country in which they are passing their lives. In regard to what fell from the last speaker, I think it was a little ill-timed for him to suggest that this Parliament at this time should legislate in a matter like this for the self-governing Dominions. That, I think, must be a matter which must be left for the self-governing Dominions themselves. As the Noble Lord said in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, it may be very desirable that legislation of this sort should be Empire-wide, but that must be a matter which will take time to negotiate and arrange with the different Dominions concerned.
I should like particularly to refer to the question of Scotland as affected by this Bill. The Noble Lord said that one of the reasons against permitting the Courts in India to administer the Scottish law was that it was practically impossible to tall upon the High Courts in India to administer the Scottish law. I do not see that that is so. Every Court of law has, on occasion, to take evidence as to a foreign law which it has to apply, and I do not think it would be impossible for the High Court in India to apply, if necessary, the Scottish law.

Earl WINTERTON: That was not my real objection. I said that if they did so, there was no logical reason why they should not apply Scots law in all other cases where Scotsmen were concerned.

Sir R. HAMILTON: The matters here affected are matters of status. It is not like a question of contract; it is a matter of status which affects the children as well. While on that point, I should like to refer to Clause 1 (1, d), which provides that
Any Court may refuse to entertain a petition in such a case if the petitioner is unable to show that by reason of official duty, poverty or any other sufficient cause, he or she is prevented from taking proceedings in the Court of the country in which he or she is domiciled.….
If that is so, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that one Scotsman may get his case decided by this law in India and another Scotsman may get his case decided at home simply because the Court may refuse to accept jurisdiction in the case. I should like to know what the Lord Advocate has to say on that point. If the Bill goes further, it will need a considerable amount of amendment, and very close attention will have to be paid to certain points to which it is not necessary at the present time to draw attention. I think that, on general principle, the House will agree that a Bill of this nature is desirable.

Mr. G. HUTCHISON: I want to reinforce what the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) said regarding the opinion of the various legal societies in Scotland on this Measure. I have in my hand the report of the Society of Procurators in Glasgow, the Society of His Majesty's Writers to the Signet and the report of my own Faculty, the Faculty of Advocates. Without exception, these Faculties have made up their mind unanimously in regard to this matter. The Society of Procurators in Glasgow say:
In the opinion of the committee, the Bill should be withdrawn.
The Faculty of Advocates say:
The Committee strongly disapprove of the Bill in its present form.
I do not know whether I am in order, but I would make the humble suggestion that, if this Bill goes before a Committee of the House, the additional Members on that Committee should be Scottish Members, so that we shall have a full representation of Scottish opinion. I would like to know whether the Scottish Bench and Bar were consulted on this matter. As I understand that 80 per cent. of the Anglo-India population in India are Scottish people, I should like to know if this was done or not. It is a very big proportion, and, considering its size, Scottish legal opinion should be consulted very fully before this Measure becomes law. On the point raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), it does not seem to me to be a very difficult matter to deal with these cases by English counsel in India according to Scottish law. As the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-
General for Scotland and every member of the Scottish legal societies know, it is a common occurrence that, when Scottish appeals on very intricate matters come before the House of Lords, they are often pled by members of the English Bar. I hope that the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary for India will fully consider these matters before they pass this Bill into law.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. William Watson): I think it is right that I should at this stage make some reply, particularly to the points raised by hon. Members interested in Scotland; but, first of all, may I say, with reference to the points which have been referred to by more than one speaker, that in the provision of Clause 1, Sub-section (1, d)—the hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw (Sir E. Hume-Williams) referred to this point, and so did the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir TI. Hamilton)—it was thought right that there should be some restriction, or rather that it should be made clear that it was only people who required to take steps in India who should be allowed to take advantage of the Bill. It may be that these restrictions have been drawn too tight. That is a matter which may well be considered in Committee. That is the object of it, because it must be borne in mind that any remedy given under this Bill is a remedy in addition to that which an Englishman or Scotsman has in his own country, that is to say, the remedy is always available in your own country.
The hon. and learned Member for Bassetlaw referred to another point, which raises a very big question indeed. He took the illustration of a husband and wife who were Mahommedans, and had become domiciled British subjects in this country, and then went back to India. That is raising a very big question as to whether they were to be entitled if they chose to elect to have Indian law applied to them in these matrimonial issues, or the English law, which was the law of their domicile. That is a question which might be raised not only between England and India, but between many other countries, and would involve a reconsideration of the whole basis on which the law of domicile with regard to divorce is based at the present time, and I can hardly think that is a
matter we can possibly touch in a Bill of this kind. Therefore, I do not think I can say more about it.
Probably the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. H. Williams) has been sufficiently answered by what was said by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It is quite obvious that we could not undertake to legislate on a question of this kind in relation to the self-governing Dominions. It is more a matter for them, and they must be consulted at the very least, and equally with regard to the Colonies and Dependencies other than the self-governing Dominions within the Empire, the delay which would be necessary to get matters of that kind arranged would be inconsistent with the urgency of this Bill. Therefore, we thought it right to give a power to deal with that matter by Order in Council. May I say that the one phrase in Clause 2, which may have excited the interest of some Members—" subject to the necessary modifications "—means the modifications which are necessary as to the particular form of the Court which is found varying in different Colonies or Dominions. There is nothing more intended than that.
I turn to the Scottish question. I make no complaint whatever of this question being raised; indeed, I am very glad it has been raised, because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, and not a little want of knowledge, on the part of some of the societies and others—I do not blame them—who have passed Resolutions upon this topic. But, as I understand it, the complaint is put on two grounds. The first one is rather a technical, legal ground. The second one is very largely a sentimental ground, and naturally so. The first ground is that domicile alone should rule the question of the Court of remedy. It might be said in answer, that that comes very curiously from any Scottish lawyer, because in a well-known case in the House of Lords more than one of their Lordships referred to the fact that the Scottish Court had been singularly astute in getting jurisdiction in matrimonial cases on grounds other than those of domicile. But I would rather meet it on its merits.
First of all, however, let me visualise the situation. Since 1869, the year of the
Indian Marriage Act, Scotsmen domiciled in Scotland, but resident in India, pro fessing the Christian faith, have taken advantage of the very provisions we have in this Bill now, and it was not until 1921, more than 50 years later, when that had become a well-established thing in India, that any legal doubt was cast upon it. Since the decision of the English Court, which no one questions now—it is because we accept it that this Bill is, rendered necessary—hut since the decision in 1921 some of the Indian Courts have taken different views, despite that decision, as regards jurisdiction in India, and it is essential now that we should deal with this matter in the same way. The first question is whether that facility to domiciled Scotsmen, which has existed since 1869, is to continue or not. I agree at once it is an exception to the technical and very good doctrine of domicile, but the fact is it has existed since 3869 without complaint, as far as we know, and has worked perfectly well. If anything, in this Bill the facilities granted are stricter than under the Act of 1869. For instance, a district Judge in the Indian Courts had jurisdiction under the Act of 1869. He will no longer have it. It is only High Court Judges who will be entitled to deal with it, and in some minor respects the conditions are somewhat stricter. It may be, as I say, that your doctrine is to have nothing but domicile, but the real question is whether those who love that pure doctrine are prepared to deprive the very large number of Scotsmen who are in India, many of them long resident there, and also Scotswomen, of this facility which they have had all these years. That is the practical question, and I should hope there would be no hesitation in saying that they ought to be allowed to have that remedy continued.
I come to the next question, which is if you are going to give the remedy, why not Scots law instead of English law That is a very practical difficulty. If it were practicable, that suggestion might very well, and I have no doubt would be, adopted. I think this matter is very well put in the Report of the Committee which dealt with this matter. What they said was:
Another practical, and in our opinion, very cogent, reason for avoiding provisions which would require Scots law, practice, and procedure to be applied by Indian
Courts to parties domiciled in Scotland is that there is little or no experience of that law available either on the Bench or at the Bar of Indian Courts; such provisions would therefore impose upon the Indian Courts an obligation which they would not be qualified to perform. Moreover, Anglo-Indian law in general, in so far as it is not suigeneris, is based upon English and not upon Scots law; Scotsmen are no less subject, therefore, if they reside in India than an Englishman or Indian to a system which in many important respects differs from that of their own country.
I would like to say at once that as regards matrimonial law, with one exception, there is practically no difference in the grounds of divorce in the two countries at the present time, and that one exception is the law of divorce for malicious desertion, which you find in the Scottish law, but not the English law. Frankly, I say at once I would be very 10th to allow any Court to decide any question in these desertion cases, unless they were fully acquainted with the technicalities of Scottish law, regarding what is known as wilful and persistent desertion for the space of four years. And, remember, that divorce for desertion is not excluded as it stands now and as it has stood since 1869 and long before; that is to say, it is open all the time in Scotland. There is no restriction of that remedy. As regards the other grounds, these are the same, as far as I know, with one, exception, which is known in England, and, as far as know, has never been raised in Scotland, that of bestiality as a ground for divorce, we need not waste time over that question. Therefore, really when you come to it there is no material difference.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is there not this distinction, that when a divorce is obtained in Scotland, the marriage settlement ipso facto ceases?

The LORD ADVOCATE: That is the very point to which I was coming. Observe that the Bill itself safeguards that, because if the hon. and learned Member will look at Sub-section (4, d) there is an express provision that rules shall be made
for preventing, in the case of a decree dissolving a marriage between parties domiciled in Scotland, the making of an order for the securing of a gross or annual sum of money.
Observe how that would work out. That means that the only order that can be
made in India in the case of a Scotsman would be an order for a weekly or other periodical amount.

Sir E. HUME-WILL1AMS: In order to secure a certain amount.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The hon. and learned Member should read the very thing I have read out. In the case of a Scotsman, that cannot be so done. The only order that can be given is what we would call weekly aliment, and that cannot be made effective in Scotland -anti/ it is registered there, and it then is subject to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts, and can be stopped at once. Surely it is only fair, in a case of a Scottish divorce in India, if the spouse who gets the divorce can make effective an order for weekly sustenance in India that that relief should be given 'I But that spouse cannot- make the order or decree in any way effective in any respect in this country until that decree is registered, and in the case of domiciled Scots, it is then subject to the control of the Scottish Court, and can be terminated at once. I suggest that is strict enough in the Bill as it stands, but, if not, it is a matter for Committee.

Captain BENN: Will the Lord Advocate take steps to keep the Bill on the Floor of the House, so as to sec that Scottish Members may have an opportunity of moving Amendments?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand that the Bill is to be kept on the Floor of the House, but the Bill has been most carefully drawn, and that was the important distinction between English and Scottish law, that the decree, when registered, not only would have effect just as a Scottish decree, but any Order which happened to be made for a weekly aliment or payment of some of the aliment, can be stopped at once in Scotland, and is subject immediately to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts.
Therefore, I hope I have satisfied the House that we look at it from a practical point of view, While I entirely understand the general view of a pure, legal doctrine of domicile and also the sentiment that if you could get it you should have Scots law instead of other law, when you look at it from a practical point of view, and consider what has happened ever since 1869 without any difficulty or
trouble, in no other way can we continue to give that facility to Scots domiciled here though resident in India but as proposed in this Bill. I do suggest to my countrymen that they should not seek to deprive all our countrymen in India of that which has been available to them all these years,, on grounds which, however understandable, are not really practicable in these days.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. MOLES: I need hardly say that I do not rise to enter into the general merits of this discussion, which, on the purely legal side, is one for a lawyer, and on the moral side, would be a fit subject for a group of theologians; but I rise to call attention to a statement made by the Noble Lord that the Bill is not to apply to Northern Ireland for the reason that persons in Northern Ireland have no facilities for divorce. It is true that the procedure in our Courts of law is different from the procedure in the Courts of law in Scotland and England, but surely it is not to be laid down in this House that British citizens abroad who are required to conform to all the conditions of citizenship are not to have all the privileges of citizenship, and that an Englishman and a Scotsman are to find themselves in one category and that an Irishman, and particularly an Ulsterman, is to find himself in another. On one occasion in this House an attempt was made to have the duty on whisky made lower in Ireland than elsewhere, and Mr. Gladstone, standing at that Box, said:
I do not conceive it to be any part of the rights of man that an Irishman should be able to get drunk cheaper than a Scotsman or an Englishman.
Surely if an Englishman and a Scotsman are to have facilities for divorce provided in this Bill, while an Ulsterman is not, that must be a denial of some parts of the rights of British citizens. I think the Noble Lord, though I have no doubt he spoke upon very good legal advice, must be somewhat in error in the statement he made. I can state to him quite definitely, and from personal knowledge, that in this very year 1926, the Parliament of Northern Ireland had before them a Divorce Bill which was duly passed into law. So the statement that there are no facilities for divorce in Northern Ireland
is not correct. All I rise to do is to ask the Noble Lord, in the event of the Government of Northern Ireland acting, as they have a right to do, under Clause 2 of the Bill, to have it extended to them so that Ulstermen resident in India will have the same facilities for divorce as they would have, and as they now have, in Northern Ireland. As far as I can gather from the Bill, while the Scotsman would enjoy the right that he would have in the Scottish Courts, and an Englishman would have the same rights as he would in the English Courts, an Ulsterman who is domiciled in the same legal sense is not to have even the limited rights that he has in his own country. Surely that cannot be just. I ask the Noble Lord to keep an open mind upon this point until the Committee stage is reached, and, should the Government of Northern Ireland make an appeal that Ulstermen should enjoy the same facilities of divorce that they have in their own country and have the facilities of this Bill extended to them in the same way as Scotsmen and Englishmen have, that that would be agreed to.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Supposing there is a marriage settlement executed between the parties at the time of marriage and that the parties are subsequently divorced, according to Scottish law, as I understand it, that puts an end to the marriage settlement altogether. In England an application has to be made by the successful party if it is desired to put an end to the marriage settlement, and the Court has discretion in the matter. Supposing a decree is granted to an Englishman who is domiciled in Scotland, does it put an end to that right or does it give a right to him to make an application to the Courts as he has in England?

The LORD ADVOCATE: As I have stated, a decree of divorce, as soon as it is registered in Scotland, will have effect as a Scottish decree, and it treats the offending spouse as being dead for the purposes of the marriage settlement; but the settlement survives

Earl WINTERTON: May I say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast South (Mr. Moles), that I made inquiry of various legal authorities and I was informed that there was no power of divorce in
Northern Ireland, but I agree that other considerations will arise if, as the right hon. Gentleman now states, a Bill has been passed in the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I will look into the matter and consult with my learned friends. The reason why this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland is the perfectly reasonable and logical one that at the time this Bill came before the House of Lords, there was no right of divorce in Northern Ireland and therefore it could not be put into this Bill.

Mr. MOLES: I can state quite definitely, as I have already informed the House, that in this year 1926 a Divorce Bill was promoted in the Parliament of Northern Ireland. I will therefore ask the Noble Lord that, as far as possible, he will keep his mind open on this subject during the remaining stages of the Bill.

Captain BENN: How does it come that an Act of Parliament is passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland and that a Minister in this House denies its existence?

Earl WINTERTON: I do not deny it. I said that, now when it is reported that such a Bill was passed, I will at once look into it and consult with my learned Friends. I say it may be that when this Bill was introduced in the House of Lords the Parliament of Northern Ireland had not passed the Divorce Bill into law.

Question, "That the Bill he now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Earl Winterton.]

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the appointment of two Judges with Indian experience to sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and to assist in the hearing of Indian appeals.
As the House knows, the ultimate Court of Appeal for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the House of Lords, and for all the other parts of the Empire the Privy Council. In the Privy Council, the business has increased enormously during recent years. In the case of Indian appeals in particular, whereas, for the five years ending, I think in 1910, there were about 52 appeals from India, for the last five years, the number was 91, so that they have very nearly doubled. In addition to that, there has been a very great increase in the number of appeals coming from our various colonies and His Majesty's Dominions overseas. The result is that it is practically necessary now for the Privy Council to sit in two divisions, one of which is occupied with the hearing of Indian appeals and the other with the hearing of appeals from other places within its jurisdiction. In order to cope with the work we have the Lord Chancellor and six Law Lords, and we have the assistance of ex-Lords Chancellor, although at the moment there is only one available, Lord Haldane. Lord Buckmaster is suffering, unfortunately, from serious illness. Lord Finlay is largely occupied in assisting the International tribunal at The Hague, and Lord Haldane is left the only available ex-Lord Chancellor. There are, in addition, in the Privy Council two other paid members, appointed under the Act of 1833. Two retired Indian Judges are allowed to sit on the Privy Council at a salary which is really only travelling expenses, £400 a year. One of these two, Syed Ameer Ali, has sat for nearly 20 years and his health will not permit him as a rule to attend.
We have Volunteer assistance from retired Lord Justices and other persons who are qualified, such as Lord Parmoor, Lord Phillimore, Lord Warrington and Lord Darling, but even with that Voluntary assistance, the House will see that, when we have to provide for five persons to be sitting in the House of Lords, five more in the first division of the Privy Council, and five to make up another Court which is habitually necessary now for Indian appeals, that it is not possible to find the necessary number in order that the Courts may be maintained. The House, I am sure, will agree that the Privy Council is a most valuable
link of Empire, and that while we have that Court it is of the first importance to this country, as well as to the Dominions, that the personnel of the Court should be such as to command the respect of all those whose appeals may come before it. That being the state of affairs, the Secretary of State for India and the Lord Chancellor, with the assistance of the late Viceroy, Lord Reading, discussed last year what was to be done to provide fresh assistance for the hearing of Indian appeals, and the plan they agreed upon was that there should be two persons appointed to sit in the Privy Council with Indian judicial or legal experience, and that those persons should each receive a salary of £4,000 a year, provided as to one-half by the English Exchequer, and as to the other half by the Indian Exchequer. Unfortunately, the Indian Legislature did not accept the proposal, although we have information that leads us to hope that that decision is not a final one. Meanwhile the position is that those appeals have to be heard, the Court has to be manned, and the plan which has recommended itself to the Government is to go forward with the payment of only that half of the salary which the English Exchequer was expected to provide, so that no extra cost will fall on this country, leaving it open to the Indian Legislature to agree, if they think fit, to pay their half later on. It is in order to achieve this that this Bill is being moved; and it provides for the appointment of these two extra Judges with Indian experience to the Privy Council at a salary of £2,000 a year each.

Miss WILKINSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the objection of the Indian Legislature to the appointment of these two Judges was on general political grounds or that they were unnecessary?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Their objection was on general political grounds. I do not think there was any suggestion that the two judges were unnecessary, provided that Indian appeals were heard in the Privy Council. In another place, when this matter was discussed, the strongest possible view in favour of the Bill was expressed by Noble Lords who hold different political views from the Government. Lord Haldane
was a very strong supporter indeed of the Measure. I commend the Bill, therefore, to the House in the belief that we shall do something to remedy what is a real grievance. I am sure we all desire that appeals to be heard by the Privy Council shall be heard by a staff of judges adequate in numbers and experience to deal expeditiously and satisfactorily with the great issues they have to determine.

Mr. TINKER: What will happen if the Indian Legislature do not find their C2,000?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The persons appointed will have to accept the lower salary of £2,000. That I anticipate they will be willing to do in the circumstances.

Miss WILKINSON: If the two persons appointed are willing to serve for £2,000, was it not rather unnecessary to offer the larger salary in the first instance?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It will probably 'be possible to find people who may be willing to accept a salary of £2,000 a year with a prospect of getting £2,000 more, whereas if you make the maximum £2,000 you would not, I think, get people of the right age and experience to undertake a task of this kind. We are not making these appointments as a mere retiring pension for judges who have served their full time in India. If that was so, it would be quite possible to get people to serve at a much lower salary, but there is a provision in the Bill that the persons appointed shall retire at the age of 72, and it is our intention to appoint people who are in the prime of their judicial faculties to these appointments.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: I have consulted my noble Friend, Lord Haldane, on this matter, and he is fully satisfied from his great experience of the work of the Privy Council that the Bill is absolutely necessary. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, perhaps, the greatest tribunal in the Empire. Appeals come to it from every country, involving every kind of question from demarkation to the proprietorship of idols, and it is a tribunal which cannot be too efficiently well staffed. In the past, as the Attorney-General has said,
the staffing of the Judicial Committee was largely dependent on. the number of ex-Lord Chancellors who happened to be available for the purpose, and, incidentally, let me say what I have always wished to say, that when people accuse ex-Lord Chancellors of doing no work and receiving pensions, there are no persons connected with the Judiciary who do more unpaid work on the Privy Council than those persons who have been Lord Chancellors.
At the moment, with the exception of Lord Haldane, the whole of this valuable source of judicial power is lacking, and there is no doubt that appeals are being held up and justice, which is urgently required, is delayed because of a want of an adequate staff on the Privy Council. No one having regard to the general salaries which are paid to the Judiciary will say that these particular gentlemen are being over-paid. Compare it with the salaries received by Masters of the Supreme Court, and County Court Judges. When you propose that members of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall receive £2,000 a year as members of this Supreme Court of Appeal in the Empire, it cannot be said to be an excessive payment. I feel that a case has been made out for the Bill, and I hope the House will pass it and the necessary Money Resolution so as to enable the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to be properly staffed.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I desire to ask one question, and I hope my opportunity of receiving a reply from the Attorney-General has not passed. I desire to inquire whether a decision of the Imperial Conference has been taken into account in relation to this Bill. On page 19 of the Summary of Proceedings, I find the following:
Another matter which we discussed, in which the general constitutional principle was raised, concerned the advantages governing appeals from judgments in the Dominions to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. From these discussions it became clear that it was no part of the policy of His Majesty's Government in Great Britain that questions affecting judicial appeals should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the wishes of the part of the Empire primarily affected. It was, however, generally recognised, that where changes of the existing system were proposed, which, while primarily affecting one part raised issues in which other parts
were also concerned, such changes ought only to be carried out after consultation and discussion.
The Attorney-General has informed us that certain political objections have been raised in India, and that there may be a wish to revise the present procedure in regard to appeals to the Privy Council. It may be that in the near future there will be some reduction in the work of the Judicial Committee. Canada may desire no longer to submit her cases to this great Tribunal, and, in that case, there would not be the same necessity to increase the personnel, with the assistance of the taxpayers' money. And there may be other parts of the Dominions who may not desire to avail themselves of the present opportunities of coming to London. If I am right, is not this Bill a little premature, and could not its passage be delayed in order that the wishes of the Dominions may become more clearly expressed in regard to their future intentions? I hope the Attorney-General will be able to inform me whether the discussions at the Imperial Conference have been taken into account before the presentation of this Bill.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: I only want to say how very cordially and warmly I support this Bill. It has been said, and I do not think it can he too often said, that the Privy Council is the most important tribunal in this country, indeed in the world, and it has always struck me as a matter of great pride that while in all parts of the British Dominions there is always a desire to assert their complete independence and their autonomous condition—only recently we had the matter brought forward again—they are still content to leave in this country the supreme tribunal to which they refer their disputes. They come to the mother country still for the ultimate decision from their own Courts. It is a matter of considerable pride to us that such a tribunal exists, and certainly anything that is required to strengthen it ought to be granted by this House without a moment's hesitation. The members of the Privy Council are largely members of the House of Lords, and it is recruited from those who have held high judicial positions in this country.
In a great many foreign countries, the judicial system is different from ours, it is part of the Civil Service of the
country, and men are promoted to judicial office at a much earlier age than they are here. Our system, which I think is undoubtedly the best, is that men are chosen for judicial office from the acting practitioners at the Bar. But it has, of course, this incidence; that Judges are, as a rule, recruited from men who are approaching or have perhaps passed middle life. They 'rave passed through various judicial offices, have reached the House of Lords or the Privy Council, and of a necessity it follows that by the time they attain that high office they are sometimes, shall I say, in the twilight of life. At any rate though they bring a wealth of knowledge to the high office, they cannot be expected to do the same amount of work as a man in early life. That has to be taken into consideration, and, consequently, when it is desired to add to the strength of the Privy Council, I think it is a matter about which this House should not hesitate for a single instant. The Attorney-General has made out an unanswerable case, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has supported the Bill in a few well-chosen and apt words. In that case, I think, there should be no hesitation in granting a Second Reading to this Measure.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but I want to enter my emphatic protest as a member of the working class and as a Socialist that a member of our Front Bench should deliberately go out of his way to give his blessing to a proposal under which a man gets £4,000 a year. I think that is going a wee bit too far. We have just passed through one of the most awful and gigantic struggles on behalf of the working classes to maintain a living wage, or anything like the semblance of a living wage, and this same Government, this same Front Bench, this same team, that are asking us to agree to give one man 24,000 a year—

Sir H. SLESSER: £2,000.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You can say what you like. I say £4,000 a year; and
facts are chiels that winna ding and canna be disputed.
It is £4,000 a year. Am I right or wrong?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This House is being asked to vote £2,000.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Yes, but I am astonished at even the Attorney-General, because he knows perfectly well—the OFFICIAL REPORT will prove it to-morrow—that he said £2,000 from the British Exchequer and £2,000 from the Indian Exchequer. If that is not £4,000, I do not know what it is. These are the same men, the Prime Minister included, who are backing £4,000 for one man, as much wages as they are prepared to pay to 2,000 colliers; and we are expected to back a Bill like that, and our Front Bench will give its blessing to it after the titanic struggle that the miners have made. If ever there was class legislation, this is it. The Prime Minister says that there is no such thing as a class struggle in society. Here he is to-day backing one man for £4,000. Is not that a terrible difference? Is not that putting class against class—one man of the lawyer class, which costs this country every year over £100,000,000 to keep them going—£100,000,000, and they do not produce a single iota of the necessaries of life, but simply live on the flesh and blood of those who do produce? Remember this, that all the good things, the good clothes that you wear, the good fruit that you eat and the good houses that you live in, are produced by labour, and whoever enjoys those good things without working for them is stealing the bread of the worker.
This is one of the reasons why this country cannot afford to give the miners and the workers in general a living wage. It is because there are certain individuals, under this system of ours, who take from it £4,000 a year. How long is it going to last? Are the Labour benches going to back a system that gives £4,000 a year to certain individuals who never have had to rough it, who never knew what it was to want their breakfast, who never knew what it was to be aching as do the children in the slums, inasmuch as they do not know what it is to have a night's sleep because of the verminous conditions under which they live? Here is a body of men, Judges, who have been reared in the lap of luxury, and the very best that Britain can give them, and then when they come to 50 or 60 years of age they are to get this comfortable job.
Why should they get it? What is it that these Judges have which is superior over me? [HON. MEMBERS: "Brains! "] Hon. Members say "Brains." I am prepared to stand any test, and if I am not mentally and physically as well equipped as any man in this House, then I do not know what it means. If any of them can prove that they have rendered their country better service than I have done, I want to see them. This is just what is to be expected—rich men living in the lap of luxury—when it comes to one of their own class. I want the Prime Minister to think about this, because even yet I have not given him up. You get the Prime Minister of this country, after negotiating with my class, coming in direct contact with Cook and Herbert Smith and other members of my class, and seeing those men who, he knows, are just as capable—whether he differs from them in his point of view or not it does not matter—just as capable of stating their case, as competent in every way as any Judge, including Lord Haldane or all the Haldanes that ever were haldaned.
There is no Judge, there is no lawyer, there is no man in this country who has a right to £4,000 a year, while the miners and the engineers are paid the wages that they receive. Think of my own trade; think of the engineers. I know that my fellow-engineers are working for £2 15s. a week. It is a scandal, and there never was a Judge, there never was a Prime Minister, including the present Prime Minister, able to give a better account of himself or to give better service to the country than the skilled engineer, and yet the skilled engineer has to give his all for £2 15s. a week. Do you think that we are going calmly to sit here and listen even to our own Front Bench? It is enough to make the very stones cry out, to think that they would tell us that this £4,000 a year should be paid. It all turns on this, that you have on the one hand people with tens of thousands of pounds, taking tens of thousands of pounds; you have gentlemen on the other side of the House who are in the habit of drawing tens of thousands of pounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] They deny it. We had an example of that in Lord Vestey, who left this country in order to escape taxation.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member is now travelling rather wide of the subject before the House.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am keeping to the point, though I know quite well that I am not going on orthodox lines. But I am speaking the truth, and "truth cutteth keener than a two-edged sword." My folk outside to-day, the working classes of this country, are thinking about the idea of one man by Act of Parliament getting £4,000 a year. We have been told that it would not do for Parliament to interfere with the wages of the working classes, and that we must have freedom. Where is the freedom?
O, freedom, what things are done in thy name!
Here is Parliament, here are the Tory party and the Prime Minister being part and parcel to a special Bill for the regulation of wages. [HON. MEMBERS: "How about your own Front Bench Vi I can deal with my own Front Bench, and it can deal with me if it likes. Here you have the Government dealing with the wages of a certain class. They cannot deal with the wages of the working classes; they cannot be big enough. I thought the Prime Minister was big enough, when he said that he would cleave his way, if necessary, through private interests, in order to see that the working classes of this country got a fair deal. He failed, and failed' miserably. He cannot bring in an Act of Parliament to ensure that the most valuable asset that the country has got, the working classes, get a comfortable living, but he is part and parcel to certain individuals getting £4,000 a year. I protest most emphatically, because, if the engineers are worth only £2 15s. a week, and the miners worth only the miserable pittance that this Government is responsible for forcing them to accept, then I say that there is no one in the British Empire who is worth £4,000 a year. The Government should think shame of themselves. If they were half human they would never bring forward a Measure like this.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I want also to protest against a Money Resolution being brought in to supplement a Bill of this kind. The Government are constantly telling the people of this country, and particularly Labour Members and their
supporters outside the House, that all remuneration amongst the working classes, for anything which they can do, must be based upon economic laws, that the economic laws which operate in this country determine and fix the wages of the workers. The engineers' wages, which are undoubtedly very low in consideration of the work that they perform, are supposed to be fixed by the law of supply and demand. During the whole of the miners' dispute the country was told by the Press, by the Prime Minister and by those who sit beside or behind him, that the miners must be prepared to accept what they could get because of economic laws. We were told that we could not fight against economic laws, and that the miners' wages must be determined by economic laws.
What did that mean? The Prime Minister himself, and others speaking on his behalf, admitted that he could not, and he would not, by Act of Parliament fix the wages which the miners were to receive, that there was to be no legal fixing of wages for the miners. Yet the Government brings in a Bill and a Money Resolution fixing the wages of two new Judges. It is not a question of increasing the wages of existing Judges, but the giving of powers to appoint two additional Judges, and they are to receive from this country £2,000 a year, with the right to have that £2,000 supplemented by £2,000 from the Indian Exchequer. I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General why they do not apply their own logic and argument when they are trying to meet the claims of miners and other working people.

Mr. GROTRIAN: Can you get Judges for less?

Mr. MACLEAN: You lock out the miners when you want them for less; lock out the Judges and you will soon get them for very much less.

Mr. GROTRIAN: It is a question of supply and demand. You cannot get them.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are scores of lawyers in London with very few briefs and very little employment who would take a job of this kind for very much less than £2,000 a year and who would
possibly do the work much better than the men you are about to appoint.

Mr. GROTRIAN: They have no knowledge of Indian law.

Mr. MACLEAN: We do not require a knowledge of Indian law or any other law to realise that the lawyers' trade union is the strongest trade union in the country. We find the lawyers always on the job when there is some pecuniary advantage to be gained. We have only to look around these benches when a question of this kind is being discussed and we find on the other side practically all its supporters are lawyers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No! "] Hon. Members have only to look around them. Let them go down to the smokeroom and they will see more. If we divide, let them examine the Division list and see the number of lawyers who have come together in support of this proposal. That is my proof. Do hon. Members require any additional proof of my statement? They know it to be true, and all their interruptions, sneers and laughter go for nothing. Of course, they have a majority and that is why they can laugh, but a few more Hulls will put them where we are now, and then we shall see who will laugh.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): That is a kind of prophecy, and does not seem relevant to the subject under discussion.

Mr. MACLEAN: It is true it is a prophecy, but this Bill deals with the future and I thought it might be in order to make a reference to the future of the Labour and Tory parties. I protest against the proposal which is contained in this Bill and in the Money Resolution which accompanies it. If this country cannot afford a living wage to those who produce wealth, it cannot afford high salaries to the individuals who are to be appointed under this Bill. I hope the matter will be pressed to a Division, because the Division List, when published in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, will be very interesting. I, for one, will go into the Lobby gladly against this proposal. I shall vote with a very light heart against a proposal to give £4,000 a year to two lawyers, when we can get scores of men to do the work at lower rates if we leave it to the operation of the economic law, and carry out the Prime Minister's pet theory.

Miss WILKINSON: I think neither the Attorney-General nor the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) are to be congratulated on their logic in this matter. They have said, first of all, that it is absolutely necessary to fix a sum of not less than £4,000 a year and that, otherwise, it will be impossible to get members of the legal profession of sufficient knowledge and ability, to do this extremely important work. Yet in the same speech the Attorney-General declared that when the Indian Legislature puts its foot down and says it is not going to pay £4,000 a year, we can find two gentlemen who, without the faintest demur, will come along and take exactly the same jobs at exactly half the rate. I cannot congratulate the lawyers on their consistency in this matter. One can only congratulate them on the way in which they stand up for their own trade union when rates of remuneration are under consideration. Far be it from me, as a trade unionist, to object to that, if it were not for the fact that we always find the members of the lawyers' trade union leading the opposition when it is a question of the trade union rights of the working class. It is just because they are the most virulent opponents of the trade union rights of other people that they must be prepared to accept considerable questioning when their own extraordinarily high rates of remuneration are under consideration.
One congratulates them on having been able to induce in this country a sort of mystical appreciation of the legal profession. They are regarded as wonderful and even when—as I understood the Attorney-General to admit—one of them is 90 years of age, there is no question of expressing anything but admiration for the marvellous brain which they can bring to bear on the problems placed before them. At any rate, the members of the legal profession are not subject to the risks which the members of the miners' and other trade unions have to undergo and they might be prepared to take less for working in such a protected trade. Those of us who have to stand the sneers which come from the other side when we are begging and asking for some merely decent minimum rate—1s. 1¾d. an hour or something like that—'are expected to vote without demur for
a proposal to give £4,000 a year to these, no doubt, estimable gentlemen. I think the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull used an expression about the law of supply and demand. I ask the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General if they are prepared to put this proposal to the test of supply and demand and to advertise these positions among the legal profession. Is suggested that there are no Indian members of the Bar qualified for these appointments? I understand there is considerable unemployment among Indian members of the Bar. Is it suggested that none o? them would be willing to take this job at a much lower figure than that now proposed? The hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull will hardly say that their knowledge of Indian law is insufficient, since they are specialists in the subject. At the present time, when we are told we cannot pay a subsistence wage for work which we cannot do without, I hope we shall not have to pay thousands to people whose work we could do without, were it not for the legal fiction and the mystery which surrounds it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think that the proposal in this Measure cannot be justified. It is sometimes argued against us that our own Front Bench is just as bad as the Front Bench on the other side. I, at least, have a clear conscience in this matter, because when our own party brought in a proposal to increase a salary from £2,000 to £5,000, I opposed it, and was practically alone in doing so. Therefore, I am carrying out quite logically the line which I took on this question towards my own colleagues when they were in office, and I cannot be accused of differentiating between one side and the other. The only argument for this proposal is that set up by the hon. and learned Member for South West Hull (Mr. Grotrian), that it is in accordance with the law of supply and demand. I remember as a pattern-maker during the War when, under the law of supply and demand, we could have demanded tremendous wages from the nation. So could the engineers at that time. We could have asked for, and I think we would have been given, great concessions, but we were told—and, possibly, it was right—that we would be
blackmailing the nation by taking advantage of a temporary shortage to insist on terms which the nation could not afford. It is admitted that since the War the men in the building trade have, in the common saying, "the ball at their feet," but it has been argued that the building trade were blackmailing the nation, and that no section of workers has a right to insist on terms from the nation which are outside the nation's capacity.
Now we are told that the law of supply and demand which was rejected in the case of the engineers and the builders is to operate in the case of the Judges. Is there any difference in human nature between the engineer and the Judge? The Attorney-General said the Indian Government had refused to agree to guarantee £2,000. They think it is an extortionate demand, but the British Government propose to take steps to compel the Indian Government to give terms which the Indian Government do not think they ought to pay. For such a proposal there cannot even be the justification which exists for a Cabinet Minister's salary. There is this to be said for the Cabinet Minister, that his job is precarious. Any election may end his term of office, but a Judge has a guarantee of full-time employment and full wages until he reaches the

age of 72. There is also this important difference, that a Cabinet Minister has no provision made for his old age unless he is prepared to plead extreme poverty, but the Judge, whether poor or rich, has the guarantee of a handsome pension, and no deductions are made from his salary such as are necessary in regard to other classes of workers. The Minister of Health in answer to a question recently told us that the nation could not increase the amount of the old age pension. We are told that 10s, a week is sufficient for the old people of the nation and is all we can afford; but, by some miraculous process of reasoning, a Judge is said 10 be worthy of far more. A Judge has comparatively little responsibility. The responsibility of Judges is, in my opinion, largely overrated. So many people have little or no knowledge of a Judge's work, that advantage is taken of that lack of knowledge in order to "boost" the position. At a time when we are asking the miners and others to live on comparatively low wages, I submit that it would be criminal on the part of this House to agree to such an extravagant wage as this for these Judges.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 230; Noes. 28.

Division No. 517.]
AYES.
[6.2 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)


Agg-Gardner, Bt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Caine, Gordon Hall
Ellis, R. G.


Albery, Irving James
Campbell, E. T.
Elveden, Viscount


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Carver, W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)


Astor, Viscountess
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Atholl, Duchess of
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.)
Fanshawe, Commander G O.


Balniel, Lord
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fenby, T. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fermoy, Lord


Barnett. Major Sir Richard
Chartaris, Brigadier-General I.
Fielden, E. B.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon w.
Christie, I. A.
Finburgh, S.


Bennett, A. J.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Clarry, Reginald George
Forrest, W.


Berry, Sir George
Clayton, G. C.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fraser, Captain Ian


Bird, E. R. (Yorks. W. R., Skipton)
Cope. Major William
Frece, Sir Walter de


Blades. Sir George Rowland
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony


Blundell, F. N.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gates, Percy


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton


Braithwaite, A. ft
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Brass, Captain W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Briant, Frank
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Goff, Sir Park


Briscoe, Richard George
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Grace, John


Brittain, Sir Harry
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Dawson, sir Philip
Grotrian, H. Brent


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Guinness, Bt. Hon. Walter E.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Drewe, C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Duckworth, John
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Burman, J. B.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Burton, Colonel H. W,
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hanbury, C.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Margesson, Captain D.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G.F.(Will'sden,E.)


Haslam. Henry C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Hawke, John Anthony
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K,
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hoadlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Henderson,Capt. R. R.(Oxt'd, Henley)
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Moles, Thomas
Templeton, W. P.


Herbert, Dennit (Htrtford, Watford)
Monsell. Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Herbert, S. (York. N. R. Scar. & Wh'by)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Hilton, Cecil
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hoare. Lt. Col Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morris. R. H.
Tinne, J. A.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Murchison, C. K.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Neville, R. J.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Holland, Sir Arthur
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Newton. Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Waddington. R.


Hudson, R. s. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nuttall, Ellis
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Huntingfield, Lord
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurd, Percy A.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Waterhouse. Captain Charles


Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hiffe, Sir Edward M.
Peto Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wells, S. R.


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wiggins, William Martin


Jephcott, A. R.
Philipson, Mabel
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pownall. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Joynson-Hicks Rt. Hon. Sir William
Radford. E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Kidd, J, (Linlithgow)
Raine. W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Ramsden, E.
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Kin Inch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Windsor-dive, Lieut-Colonel George


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rentoul. G. S.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R,
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Lister. Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
RuggiesBrise, Major E. A.
Withers, John James


Lockor-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Womersley, W. J.


Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Samuel. A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sandcman. A. Stewart
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


MacIntyre, Ian
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave O.
Yerburgh, Major Robert O. T.


McLean. Major A.
Savery. S. S.
Young. Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Macnaghten, Hon Sir Malcolm
Skilton. A. N.



McNeill. Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Macquisten, F. A.
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Captain Bowyer and Captain Lord


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Smithers, Waldron
Stanley.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scrytngcour, E.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Stephen, Campbell


Batey, Joseph
Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thurtle, Ernest


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Westwood, J.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, f. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Connolly, M.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan
Williams. David (Swansea, East)


Duncan, C.
Maxton. James



Dunnico, H.
Robinson, W.C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Kirk wood and Mr. Buchanan.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Committee of

the whole House."—[The Attorney General.]

The House divided: Ayes, 227; NOES, 30.

Division No. 518.]
AYES.
[6.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Braithwaite, A. N.


Agg-Gardner. Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Brass. Captain W.


Ainsworth. Major Charlet
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Briant. Frank


Albery, Irving James
Bennett, A. J.
Briscoe. Richard George


Ashley. U. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Brittain, Sir Harry


Astor, Mai. Hi. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Berry, Sir George
Brocklebank. C. E. R.


Astor, Viscountess
Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Brown. Lindsay, Major H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Bird. E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blades, Sir George Rowland
Buckingham, Sir H.


Balniel. Lord
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Phillpson, Mabel


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Haslam, Henry C.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Headlam, Lieut.-Calonel C. M.
Raine, W.


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Ramsden, E.


Carver, W. H.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Held, D. D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, G. S.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Herbert,S.(York, N.R.,Scar. & wh'by)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cecil, Rt- Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Charleton, H. C.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D


Clarry, Reginald George
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Savery, S. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb. Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Huntingfield, Lord
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Cumin. Captain Viscount
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Storry-Deans, R.


Davies. Dr. Vernon
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Drewe, C.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Templeton, W. P.


Duckworth, John
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey;


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Locker. Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tinne, J. A.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Ellis, R. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Elveden, Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Turton, sir Edmund Russborough


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
MacIntyre, I.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McLean, Major A.
Waddington, R.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Fairfax, Captain J G.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston. on-Hull)


Fenby, T. D.
Macquiston, F. A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fielden, E. B.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Finburgh, S.
Manningham-Buller, sir Mervyn
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Forestier-Walker. Sir L.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Wells, S. R.


Forrest, W.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wiggins, William Martin


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Moles, Thomas
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh. Wrexham)


Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Goff, Sir Park
Murchison, C. K.
Withers, John James


Grace, John
Neville, R. J.
Womerstey, W. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge Hyde)


Greene, W. p. Crawford
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn.W.G. (Ptrsfld.)
Woodcock. Colonel H. v.


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor. T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Crmsby-Gore, Hon. William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hall. Vice-Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Captain Bowyer and Captain Margesson.


Hanbury, C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sullivan, J.


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Thurtle, Ernest


8atey, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Varley, Frank B.


Bromley, J.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Westwood, J.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Maxton. James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Clowes, S.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Compton, Joseph
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Connolly, M.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Wright, W.


Duncan, C.
Saklatvala, Shapurji



Dunnico, H.
Scrymgeour, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Stephen, Campbell
Mr. Kirkwood and Mr. Bucnanan.

Bill according committed to a Committee of the whole House for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order 71A.

[Mr. JAMES HORE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is expedient to charge on the Consolidated Fund the yearly salary of two thousand pounds to be paid under the said Act to each of the two persons to be appointed there under to be members of the said Judicial Committee."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. McNeill.]

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not think this matter ought to go through without some explanation from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. Surely it is preposterous that. we should be asked to vote £2,000 a year for two individuals, making £4,000 in all, without a word of explanation from him, and without some general statement as to the policy of the Government underlying its proposal. It is notorious that the Government come to this House with Financial Resolutions, and that when you, Mr. Chairman, or your colleague, puts the question from the Chair, the Financial Secretary or the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives a nod of the head, and on that it is expected that large sums of money are to he voted without explanation from those responsible. It is about time the House took charge of affairs, and demanded from those who are looked upon as being in control of the finance of the country that they should make some definite statement as to the reasons for the payments they ask the House to make. I think the House has a right to know just exactly what is in the mind of the Financial Secretary, and I hope we are going to have some statement, particularly when we have reminded the Government that there are other people in this country who, in our opinion, are more deserving of this money, who are more deserving of payments from the State, and who are being treated as though they were the worst possible aliens we could have in the country. When they ask for living conditions their claim is rejected, but here we have a proposal to pay £2,000 a year for year after year for two Judges. I am not going to protest against it at this stage, but I want to know what it means.
There is another point I would like some explanation upon. It states in the Bill that, in the event of death or a vacancy occurring, further appointments can be made to make up the number of Judges to two. It is quite a reasonable thing to assume that in those circumstances—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can discuss the amount to be paid, but he appears now to be discussing provisions in the Bill. They can be discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, but not on this Resolution.

Mr. MACLEAN: The Financial Resolution reads:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the constitution of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, it is expedient to charge on the Consolidated Fund the yearly salary of two thousand pounds to be paid under the said Act to each of the two persons to be appointed there under to he members of the said Judicial Committee.
Surely I would be in order in putting a question as to the implications which the appointment of these Judges, and their payment, would bring upon this house?

The CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. Member was discussing some provision in the Bill for further appointments on vacancies occurring.

Mr. MACLEAN: No, my point is this, if these Judges retired would they retire upon a pension, and would it be necessary for a further financial resolution to be brought in in order to provide the additional sum that would he necessary for their pensions? It is only right the House should know how far we may be pledged to payments to these individuals. It. may be that certain individuals may be appointed who may have to retire through ill-health, and we may he paying pensions to ex-Judges and paying £2,000 a year to the. Judges filling the places they have vacated.
The Government talk a great deal about the necessity for economy, how the country cannot afford this and cannot afford that, how old-age pensions cannot be increased, how housing subsidies have to be cut down, how health conditions are worsened, how payments to education authorities must be reduced—in fact, on every occasion when we make requests
for expenditure on those social services to be maintained at the standard at which it used to be maintained, we are told the country cannot afford it. When, however, it is a question of finding money for Judges, finding money for individuals in this particular sheltered trade, they are not held up to ridicule and opprobium such as ordinary working men or women getting weekly wages in other sheltered trades have to encounter. When the case of those who are skilled in word-spinning and legal jugglery comes before this House, we are asked to believe that this is some wonderful and great profession which will attract men to it only if they get the highest possible standard of living that our civilisation can offer. If this is the standard of living to which Judges are entitled, I submit the standard of living of every other individual in this country ought to be equal to that of the best Judge in the land: and if this country cannot afford to give to the workers of this country, who produce the wealth, a standard of living higher and better than is found for them by the present Government, the House has no right to vote away £2,000 a year for new Judges, with the problematical addition of another £2,000. It is time the House took possession of the financial situation. If we have not the money to provide the people with the conditions which our present progress in civilisation merits, and which the productive activity of this country entitles them to have, this country is too poor to afford £2,000 a year for two new Judges.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): The only reason I rise is that if I did not do so I might appear to be discourteous to the hon. Gentleman after the pointed appeal he made to me Personally; but really I do not think there is any occasion for me to discuss the matter, which has been fully dealt with already on the Second Reading of the Bill, a Debate which has just been brought to a close. Then my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General dealt fully with all the merits of the case. The hon. Member spoke as though on matters of this sort the Treasury had a separate and distinct standard. The hon. Member must remember that these are proposals of the Government, that this is
the policy of the Government, and a Measure of this sort would not have been brought before the House if all the financial aspects of it had not been already considered by the Treasury. When a member of the Government like my right hon. and learned Friend brings forward a Bill, and a Resolution of this sort is required, I think the House may take it for granted that there is no divergence of view between the Attorney-General and the Treasury on the point.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask for an answer as to the point, T put regarding the possibility of pensions having to be paid? In that case would the Government have to bring in another Money Resolution?

Mr. McNEILL: If any question of pension for these Judges arises, of course provision would have to be made for it by the House, and that case, no doubt, another Money Resolution would have to be brought forward.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask two further questions The Attorney-General said the gentlemen who were going to have these posts would take them on the understanding that an extra £2,000 would probable be given in future by the Indian Legislature. Can we have an undertaking from the Secretary to the Treasury, first, that no pressure, political or otherwise, will be brought to bear on the Indian Legislature to provide this extra £2,000 for people whom, apparently, they do not want: and, secondly can we have an assurance that if the Indian Legislature persist in a refusal not to give this £2,000, he will not come to this House to make up the salary to £4,000—the amount which he has laid down as fie salary?

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to ask the members of the Conservative party if this is what they preach at the election. Here the Government are making proposals for these appointments, and they imagine that we have no right to ask for an explanation to be given to the House. It may be that your Judges are worth £2,000 a year, and that you require two additional Judges, but what I want to know is that when you suggest that there is the possibility of a man of 72 years of age getting £4,000 a year you are doing something which you would be afraid to
tell the electors of the country. I protest against this method of adding to the burdens of the nation, and I hope we shall take advantage of this opportunity of driving the Government supporters into the. Division Lobby in regard to this Vote.

Miss WILKINSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. May I point out that I have put two quite definite questions to which I have not received any reply?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. I can sometimes ask Ministers and hon. Members to desist from speaking, but I have no power to make them speak.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: Do I understand that if the Indian Government refuse to pay this £2,000 that we shall have to pay it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Yes.

Mr. ADAMSON: And does that mean that' we shall have another application for an additional £2,000?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No.

Mr. MAXTON: Does it mean that these Judges are being asked to work under the trade union rate?

Mr. CONNOLLY: I would like to ask whether these are going to be full-time appointments, or whether membership of the Judicial Committee carries with it the right to hold other similar positions?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Membership of the Judicial Committee does not disqualify them from any other position, but there is no intention of appointing somebody who holds another position, nor can I think of any other position that could properly be held.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to know if these learned gentlemen who are going to be asked to take up these appointments are to be told that their remuneration is to be £2,000 or 24,000? Will they be told that the salary is £4,000 or £2,000? If the salary is to be £4,000, I want to know where the other £2,000 is going to come from? Is it going to be compulsorily taken out of the pockets of the Indian taxpayers, or will it have to be made up by our own Treasury in some way or another? If it is going to be imposed upon the Indian Government compulsorily
by the home Government, then that is a matter for the strongest protest in this House. If it is to be paid by our own Treasury, then the Financial Resolution ought to be brought forward now. I would like the Attorney-General to answer that particular point. I would like to know if those who are Being to be asked to take up these appointments are to be told that their remuneration will be £4,000 or £2,000, or whether they will have to start at £2,000 with a prospect of getting another £2,000 later on.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In appointing any person to these posts, they will be told the facts. We are now voting £2,000 a year, and, if and when the Indian Legislature should see fit to vote a similar amount, then they will be entitled to it.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Attorney-General expect men to take on an appointment for a salary of £2,000, with a probability of receiving £4,000 in the future?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I certainly hope, and so do the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for India, that we shall be able to find persons who will accept these posts on those terms.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we going to compel the people of India to pay this additional £2,000?

Captain BENN: I feel that the preservation of the right of appeal is a very important part of our Imperial relations. I think in this matter we have a right to complain of a lack of candour on the part of the Attorney-General. First of all we were told that only £2,000 was to be voted, and then he told us that another £2,000 was to be paid by the Indian Legislature. Now it appears that there is to be a pension attached to it. I think we should be told that this is not simply a Vote for £2,000, but that there is a possibility of a further £2,000 if the Indian Legislature does not vote that amount, and besides this, there is the possibility of a pension. Some hon. Members on these benches who would not support a Motion for a reduction of this Vote feel that we should have had a little more candour from the Attorney-General on this question. Inasmuch as
we are now dealing with the question whether the additional £2,000 is likely to be voted by the Indian Government, and whether we shall be asked to vote it in this House if the Indian Government refuses. I think some representative of the India Office should be here to answer that question. I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies represents the India Office on this matter.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for COLONIAL AFFAIRS (Mr. OrmsbyGore): No.

Captain BENN: Then why is the Under-Secretary of State for India not present when this money Resolution is being discussed? How can the Attorney-General give us full information as to whether the Indian Legislature objects to paying this money or not. It is important that we should know these facts, and only one person can tell us and that is the representative of the India Office. I think we might have had a little more candour about the full financial position, and we want more information about the intention of the Indian Legislature.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has charged me with a lack of candour, but I wonder whether he took the trouble to be present, when I moved the Second reading of the Bill and listened to what I said on that occasion.

Captain BENN: As the Attorney-General is in the habit of making that

kind of attack, I wish to say that I was present, and I had the inestimable privilege of hearing what he then said.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In that case, the hon. and gallant Member's charge is absolutely inexcusable. If he refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceeding on this occasion, he will see that we asked the House to vote a salary of £2,000, and that I stated explicitly that the Indian Legislature had been asked to give an additional £2,000, that last year the Indian Government did not agree, but that there is some hope that they may change their mind and do so later on. In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman says he heard what I said, and has now been misrepresenting me, I say that his action is absolutely inexcusable. The only other accusation is that I did not tell the Committee that these Judges were to have pensions. The reason I did not tell the Committee that is that they are not to have a pension.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned." I do so owing to the lack of information in regard to this Vote, and the absence of any representative of the India Office.

The CHAIRMAN: That is not quite the proper procedure. The hon. Member should move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit- again. "—[Mr. Thurtle.]

The Committee divided: Ayes, 108; Noes, 212.

Division No. 519.]
AYES.
[6.42 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dunnico, H.
Kennedy, T.


Ammon, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood, D.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gosling, Harry
Lawrence Susan


Baker, Walter
Graham, Bt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Barnes, A.
Greenall, T.
Lee, F.


Barr, J,
Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)
Lindley, F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Groves, T.
Lowth, T.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Gundy, T. W.
Lunn William


Bondfield, Margaret
Guest, Haden (Southwerk, N.)
MacDonald. Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)


Briant, Frank
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow. Govan)


Bromfield, William
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Bromley, J,
Hamilton, Sir ft. (Orkney 4 Shetland)
March, S.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute
Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James


Buchanan, G.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Montague, Frederick


Charleton, H. C.
Hayes, John Henry
Morris, R. H.


Clowes, S.
Hirst, G. H.
Murnin, H.


Cluse, W. S.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Naylor, T. E.


Connolly, M.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddertfield)
Palln, John Henry


Crawfurd, H. E.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, W.


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dennison, R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Duncan, C.
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Stephen, Campbell
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Riley, Ben
Sullivan, J.
Westwood, J.


Robinson, WC (Yorks.W. R.,Elland;
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, W.


Saklatvala, Shapurjl
Taylor, R. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


Scrymgeour, E,
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Scurr, John
Thorne, w. (West Ham, pialstow)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sexton, James
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Windsor, Walter


Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Treveiyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wright, W.


Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Varley, Frank B.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Viant, S. P.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Finburgh, S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Albery, Irving James
Forrest, W.
Manningham-Bulier, Sir Mervyn


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Foxcrott, Captain C. T.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Astor, Viscountess
Fraser, Captain tan
Merriman, F. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon, Stanley
Frece, Sir Walter de
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Barnctt. Major Sir Richard
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Moles. Thomas


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Monscil, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Bennett, A. J.
Glyn, Major R. G. c.
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C R. (Ayr)


Bentlnck. Lord Henry Cavendlsb.
Gofl, Sir Park
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Birchall, Major J. Oearman
Grace, John
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. s. D. L. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, A. N,
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brass, Captain W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)


Briscoe, Richard George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Nuttall, Ellis


Brittain, Sir Harry
Gunston, Captain D. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bcdlnrd, Luton)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hammersley, s. S.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hanbury, C.
Pefo, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Haslam, Henry C.
Phillpson, Mabel


Burman, J. B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Radford, E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Raine, W.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Ramsden, E.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Cainc, Gordon Hall
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. 4 Wh'by)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)


Campbell, E. T.
Hilton, Cecil
Rentoul. G. S.


Carver, W. H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'tVy)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hogg. Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Rye, F. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm.,W.)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Holland, Sir Arthur
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Savery, S. S.


Clayton, G. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'ni Klnc'dine.C.)


Cope. Major William
Huntingfield, Lord
Smithers, Waldron


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cowan, O. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stanley. Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Lord (Fyide)


Crookshank, Col, C. de W. (Berwick)
lliffe. Sir Edward M.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G.fWestm'elandJ


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Storry-Deans, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jephcott, A. R.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Davidson. J. (Hertfd.Hemel Hempst'd)
Jones. G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davies, Mai. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, s.)
King, Captain Henry Doublas
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Thomson. F. C. 'Aberdeen. Southl


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Titchfield, Major the Marouess of


Drewe, C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duckworth, John
Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Phlilp
Turton. Sir Edmund Russborough


Eden, Captain Anthony
Locker.Lampson. G. (Wood Greeni
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Locker- Lampson, com. O. (Handswth)
Waddington, R.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrlngton)
Looker, Herbert William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Klngstoncn-Hull)


Ellis, R. G.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Elveden, Viscount
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Erskine.Lord (Somerset Weston-s.-M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (1. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Maclrttyre, Ian
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McLean, Major A.
Wells. S. R.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple


Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wlggins, William Martin




Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wise, Sir Fredric
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Withers, John James
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Womersley, W. J.



Williams, Herbert G, (Reading)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W,)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Bowyer.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. MACLEAN: There are two points on which I should like to ask for an explanation. The Attorney-General, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn), said that he did not mention any pension because no pension was attached to the office. I take that to be a direct and definite statement. Will the Attorney-General now smooth over the statement of the Financial Secreary to the Treasury in which he said he would be prepared to come to the House for a further Financial Resolution for pensions when the occasion arose?

Mr. McNEILL: What I said was that there was no provision for pensions in this Bill.

Mr. MACLEAN: When I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question about pensions, he put forward the statement that he would come before the House for a. Resolution dealing with pensions if necessary—

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: If necessary!

Mr. MACLEAN: Will it not be necessary where lawyers are concerned? Have von ever known it not to be necessary? I want to know what the intentions are. That was the point of my question to the Financial Secretary, and he met it by stating that there would be a pension, and a Financial Resolution to support the pension. The Attorney-General says there is going to be no pension. I wonder where the Government are getting to, or whether they understand each other in the various Departments?
With regard to my second point, I see that the Under-Secretary of State for India s now here. He sat through the Debate on the original Bill, and I would like to ask him whether he can give the House any information with regard to the statements that have been made as to the refusal of India to pay this additional £2,000. The statement was made by the Attorney-General in his original speech, and he supplemented it in the speech he
made just before the Division, that the Indian Government had refused the £2,000 last year, but that he was living in hopes—I hope he will not die in despair—that they would come info a better frame of mind, from his point of view, next year, and grant the £2,000. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he can give the House any information as to the intentions of the Indian Legislature, and whether there is any possibility of their granting this additional £2,000 to supplement the £2,000 that each Judge will be voted by this House; or can he say whether the definite objection taken last year by the Indian Legislature still stands, and that, so far as the House knows, only £2,000 is to be paid to each Judge.

Earl WINTERTON: I apologise to the Committee for not having been present during this stage. As the hon. Gentleman has very courteously pointed out, I was present during the earlier stage, but, as the Bill was in the hands of the Attorney-General, and very properly so, as it is a judicial matter, I was out of the House for a few moments taking part in some official business. As soon as I ascertained that these questions were being asked. I hurried back.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question very simply. In the first place, in his speech there was, if I may say so, some confusion of terms. It was not the Indian Government that turned, down the proposal, but the Indian Legislature. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could state what is likely to be the attitude of the Indian Legislature towards this proposal if it is brought before it again in future. Obviously I do not know, and it would be most improper for me to attempt to predict, what would he the attitude of the elected representatives of the people of India in deciding on this point. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, so far as I am aware, it is the intention of the Government of India to bring up the proposal for a grant in the Indian Legislature at some future opportunity, which will probably be in the first Session of next year.

Mr. MACLEAN: May I ask the Noble Lord whether there is any other Department of the Indian Government or of the Indian Legislature from which this additional payment which it is suggested is likely to be made to any Judge appointed under the Bill can be drawn?

Earl WINTERTON: The matter has to come before the Indian Legislature and has to be accepted by the Indian Legislature. As to whether they are likely to accept it or not, I am not, as I have said, in a position to tell the hon. Gentleman, any more than I am in a position to say what this House is likely to accept in the future. I can tell him, however, that, so far as I am aware, it is the intention of the Government of India again to bring this proposal for a grant before the Indian Legislature at some future date.

Mr. THURTLE: The Noble Lord says that it is the intention to bring this question of a grant before the Indian Legislature again, but can he say whether, in the event of the Indian Legislature rejecting the grant, it is the intention of the Viceroy to exercise his power of certification under the Government of India Act, and pass this grant over the heads of the elected representatives of the Indian people?

Earl WINTERTON: I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will realise that that is a question which it is impossible for me to answer. How can I predict what action the Government of India will take in certain hypothetical circumstances in the future? On the last occasion the Government accepted the view of the Indian Legislature, but whether or not they will accept it in future I am unable to tell the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Noble Lord undertake that the India Office will make representations to the Government of India that, in the event of the Legislature turning down this grant, no pressure by certification should be brought to bear in this case? Will the Noble Lord undertake to make representations in that sense?

Earl WINTERTON: No; I think it would be must improper for me to give any such pledge.

Miss WILKINSON: During the Noble Lord's absence, when this point was put to the Attorney-General, the Attorney-
General shook his head very violently when we asked whether it was proposed to certify this grant. We are now told by the Under-Secretary that he cannot say whether certification will take place or not. On this matter we have had three Members of the Government—the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the Attorney-General, and the Under-Secretary for India—contradicting each other for the last two hours. Whenever matters have been raised we have had contradictory answers, and, after a very hasty consultation, they have managed to smooth matters over more or less respectably. Might we suggest to the Government that they should withdraw this grant until these three gentlemen have had time at least to make up one tale to put before the House?

Earl WINTERTON: My right hon. and learned Friend assures me that he made no such signs as the hon. Lady seems to have thought he made, so that her last speech was based on a misapprehension.

Captain BENN: Can the Noble Lord say when these appointments will be made?

Earl WINTERTON: That is really a question for the Attorney-General and not for me to answer, but I understand it will be at an early date.

Captain BENN: In that case, who is going to pay the additional £2,000 pending the proposal being placed before the Indian Legislature?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had listened with his usual close attention to the earlier part of the Debate, he would have realised that the Attorney-General has already explained that. if the money is not forthcoming it will not he paid.

Captain BENN: Then we understand the position to be—certainly it has been rather difficult to extract all the facts—we understand the position to be this: We understand that the appointments are to be made immediately, and I presume that some candidates are in view. Are they to go on at £2,000 a year ad interim, and, supposing that the Indian Legislature does not vote the additional £2,000, shall we pay it retrospectively as from the date of the
appointment? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is rather an important thing to know exactly. It is a very great mistake for anyone to suppose that I wish to attack either the legal profession or its rate of remuneration, or this particular important part of the fabric of our judicature, but I do say that the House of Commons in Committee is entitled to know what it is voting. We have not the least idea. We know that we are going to pay £2,000 a year as from the date of these appointments, but we do not know whether the additional £2,000 is going to be found from India. Are we to understand that if it is not found we are to pay it retrospectively? The Attorney-General told us, in his brief way: "No pension." [Loud laughter.] Subsequently he was corrected by the Financial Secretary, who said that when the moment arrived, and these gentlemen had done their service, he was willing, and presumably intended, to come before the House of Commons and move pensions for them.

Mr. McNEILL: May I say that I said nothing of the sort? What I did say, in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean), was that no pension was provided, and that if at any future time it should be desirable to give a pension it would be necessary to come to the House for a Resolution.

Captain BENN: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman has not really dealt with the point. Either these appointments are or are not in their nature appointments entitled to pension—I will not say pensionable in the technical sense that they carry a pension under the terms of agreement, but in the nature of pensionable appointments. Therefore, it is surely possible for the Government to say whether they are or not, and we should like to know. I am inclined to think they are appointments such that, when the Judges retire, the Government of the day would be asked to propose a, pension for them. It would have been much better if we had been told at the outset that this would ultimately be involved in the transaction. I am still completely ignorant as to whether or not this £4,000 is to date from the date of appointment and is to be retrospectively
paid by us, should the Indian Government fail to find the money. That is a question which has not been answered.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to suggest to the Noble Lord and to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that already they have men under discussion for filling these vacancies and they have probably already suggested to certain men that they should fill the appointments. They know the two men, and I am perfectly certain that they have told them something more definite than has up to the present been told to the House of Commons. These men are not going to start with £2,000 a year on the sporting chance that they may perhaps get £4,000. They are not going on any sporting chance of getting a pension at 72 years of age, but they will have had a very definite promise from the right hon. and learned Gentleman and from the Noble Lord the Secretary of State in another place, who would not have dared to approach his professional brethren or men of high legal standing in his own professional organisation to fill these vacancies without giving them something a great deal more tangible. If I know a anything of the standards of the legal profession, the members of that profession would not go into this unless they had definitely a bird in the hand. They are not going to be content with the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointing to two birds in the bush. They would want to know quite definitely what the conditions of their appointments are, how they are going to be paid, how much, and what are the conditions as to retirement. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Noble Lord can discuss these matters inside their trade union organisation, we want to know just exactly what have been the promises made to them in the name of the House of Commons and of the Indian Legislature. They know all about it, but we know nothing, and I am going to oppose this Resolution most strenuously until such time as we hear some more plausible story than we have had up to now.

Mr. PALING: As the Noble Lord has said, the Indian Legislature have refused to endorse these payments and there is the possibility that this year they may do the same thing. Apparently, they are not going to pay until they have been
asked to pay for these Judges. I would like to ask the Noble Lord if we are justified in thinking that they have been influenced in reaching that decision not to pay these high wages by the statement the Prime Minister made this year that the wages of all British workers must come down.

Earl WINTERTON: I was just going to rise on a point of order, because as far as I know it is entirely out of order to discuss what was in the minds of members of an elected assembly in another

part of the Empire in corning to a decision.

Captain BENN: I submit it is also entirely out of order and contrary to the practice for the Government to come forward with a vague and undefined payment which pretends to be £2,000 and may very likely be £4,000 with pension rights.

Original Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 99.

Division No. 520.]
AYES.
[7.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, R. G.
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Albery, Irving James
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Macdonald, Capt. p. D. (I. of W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Everard, W. Lindsay
MacIntyre, Ian


Astor, Viscountess
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean. Major A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Fenby, T. D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Fermoy, Lord
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Finburgh, S.
Mac Robert, Alexander M.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Bennett, A. J.
Forrest, W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Margesson, Captain D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fraser, Captain Ian
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bird, E R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony
Merriman, F. B.


Blundell, F. N.
Gauit, Lieut. Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Moles, Thomas


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Braithwaite, A. N.
Goff, Sir Park
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Briant, Frank
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Greene, W. p, Crawford
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Brocklebank, C. E. R,
Grotrian, H. Brent
Neville, R. J.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.(Bristol, N)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig. -Gen. HC.(Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Pirsl'ld.)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Nuttall, Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Hammersley, S. S.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Burton, Color, H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Harrison, G. J. C.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Hawke, John Anthony
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Philipson, Mabel


Carver, W. H.
Henderson Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Booties
Radford, E. A.


Cayzer. Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Raine, W.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Ramsden, E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Blrm., W.)
Herbert. S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hilton, Cecil
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rentoul, G. S.


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Clayton, G. C,
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Holland, Sir Arthur
Rye, F. G.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hudson, R. s. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Crawfurd, H. E.
Huntingfleld, Lord
Savery, S. S.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hurd, Percy A.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hutchison. G. A. Clark (Mldi'n & P'bl's)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.'C.)


Curzon. Captain Viscount
Hiffe. Sir Edward M.
Smithers, Waldron


Cavldson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
James, Lieut-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F.(Will'sden, E.)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jephcott, A. R
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Storry-Deans, R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Streatfield, Captain S. R.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Drewe, C.
Locker- Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Duckworth, John
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Tasker, Major R. Inigo


Eden, Captain Anthony
Looker, Herbert William
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lord, Walter Greaves
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lynn, Sir Robert J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.
Wiggins, William Martin
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Waddington, R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, C. p. (Denbigh, Wrexham)
Wragg, Herbert


Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wise, Sir Fredric
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Withers, John James
Mr. F. C. Thomson and Major


Wells, S. R.
Womersley, W. J.
Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Scrymgeour, E.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sexton, James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, Walter
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barnes, A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barr, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Rennie (Pentstone)


Bromfield, William
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromley, J,
Kelly, W. T.
Spoor, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Charles


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph U.
Sullivan, Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Clowes, S.
Lawrence, Susan
Taylor, R. A.


Cluse. W. S.
Lawson, John James
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dalton, Hugh
Lowth, T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Dennison, R.
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Viant, S. P.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermillne)


Gardner, J. P.
March, S.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Gibbins, Joseph
Maxton, James
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Guest, Haden (Southwark, N.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks. W. R., Elland)



Hardie, George D.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Allen Parkinson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS [GUARANTEE].

Further considered in Committee [Progress, 21st July].

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Question proposed [21st July],
That it is expedient to authorise the Treasury to guarantee the payment of the principal of, and the interest on, the following loans:

(a) a loan to be raised by the Government of Palestine not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise four million five hundred thousands pounds; and
(b) a loan to be raised by the Governments of Kenya, Uganda, Northern. Rhodesia, Nyasaland, or Tanganyika not exceeding an amount sufficient to raise ten million pounds;

and to charge on the Consolidated Fund any moneys required to fulfil any such guarantees as aforesaid.

Question again proposed.

Mr. DALTON: The Committee is meeting to discuss this subject under a somewhat inconvenient procedure in view of the fact that four months have elapsed since 21st July when this Resolution first came before us, and we are now deprived of having the discussion initiated by a statement from the Government side. However, not, only did the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs make a statement in defence of these proposals on that occasion, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Snell) explained that we did not approach these proposals in any spirit of opposition but rather in a spirit of seeking further information on various points which were not clear, and assurances on the one hand as to the financial and economic soundness of the detailed proposals and on the other with regard to the safeguarding of the interests of native populations in East Africa and of
their share to benefit in the working out of these schemes. I cannot congratulate the Government on the efficiency with which they are pressing forward schemes of Empire development, about which at the last General Election a great deal was heard on Conservative platforms. The so-called Ormsby-Gore Commission, of which the present Under-Secretary was the Chairman, was appointed by the Colonial Secretary in the Labour Government and it was able to complete its Report two years ago. More than two years elapsed before any attempt was made to act upon the recommendations of that Report. Whether the recommendations were right or wrong, we were surely entitled to have some action based upon them before now. Furthermore, in the Report of what has been called the Schuster Committee, which was presented to the House four months ago, the proposals which are before us to-day were subjected to a great deal of detailed criticism.
I want to comment upon the delay which has taken place since the last General Election in making even a beginning in carrying out the various pledges then given by the Conservative party with regard to the development of the Empire on proper lines. We were told at the last election that in so far as the Conservative party had a cure for unemployment, it was to be found chiefly by encouraging trade within the Empire, and we have been told very plausibly that one argument in favour of loans to the East African Dependencies is that they will result in orders in this country for railway material. Indeed it was stated by the Colonial Secretary that not less than half the expenditure on railways under this guarantee will be spent in this country on orders which will do something to provide additional employment in the iron and steel and engineering industries which have been so greatly depressed. I should like to know why we have had to wait for two years—and we shall have to wait a good deal longer before these schemes begin to yield any additional employment—why there has been such gross delay on the part of the Conservative Government in carrying our the only policy they put forward at the last election for giving additional employment in the heavy industries, and similarly why there has been such gross
delay in developing what we have heard described as the illimitable natural resources of these East African territories for cotton, for coffee, for all sorts of products which it is especially desirable to encourage the cultivation of because they in no way directly compete with our industries in this country and, therefore, such imports cannot be objected to even by the most virulent Tariff Reformer or Protectionist. Why has nothing been done so far to secure a more rapid development of these forms of cultivation and of trade between this country and the East African Dependencies, and why has so little been done, and that so slowly, to develop the resources of the mandated territory of Tanganyika which we legally hold in trust under the League of Nations Mandate since the Treaty of Versailles, and why, further, have the Government waited two years since the last election, during which time the national credit has deteriorated under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that the difficulty of raising loans in the open market has become greater, since the prices of trustee securities have fallen from the relatively high level at which they stood when the Labour Government was in office to the deplorably low level at which they stand as the result of two years' experience of the present Chancellor's finance? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that is a joke. He knows better. It is not a joke, but a very serious reality.

Mr. McNEILL: I did not say it was a joke. I said the hon. Member was a joker.

Mr. DALTON: The facts to which I have referred can be verified by a study of the prices of securities immediately before the Labour Government left office and after two years' experience of the Government that succeeded them. The point is a perfectly serious and solid one. We are being asked to provide the British taxpayers' guarantee behind sums of money which may aggregate nearly £15,000,000. The difficulty of raising these sums, even with the British Government guarantee behind them, is much greater now than it was two years ago. The terms which will have to be paid by Palestine on the one hand and by the East African Dependencies
on the other will be more onerous and it would have been in every way better to take advantage of the financial improvements which were brought about while the Labour Government, was in office and, immediately after the Conservative Government came in, before the evil effects of their tenure of power made themselves felt on the stock exchanges of the country, to have proceeded forthwith to assist in the floating of these loans. It would have been much better business both for Palestine and East Africa. I hope, therefore, we shall have some account given as to why there has been such grave and prolonged delay in dealing with these important matters of Empire development.
I wish to ask a few questions about the allocation of the money with regard to East Africa, partly as to its allocation between different areas and partly as to its allocation for different purposes. First as to its allocation between areas. Many of us have been gravely dissatisfied with the state of affairs in Kenya. I do not propose, and I doubt whether it would be in order, to go into great detail as to the grounds of our dissatisfaction, but, shortly put, they are that the native policy in that Colony is very retrograde as compared with other parts of the Empire, and in particular as compared with West Africa, and that forced labour has on many occasions been resorted to. We have had occasional assurances that that is no longer so, but it has undoubtedly been the case to an extent unparalleled in other African Dominions.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should like to point out that practically all the railways in West Africa have been built by forced labour, locally called political labour, and very few in East Africa. The misapprehension is so common that I rise to correct it.

Mr. DALTON: I was saying, and I am glad to repeat it, that most of us have no serious quarrel with the policy which has been pursued in West Africa. Of course, there are more railways in West Africa. I was not speaking specifically of labour on railways. Indeed the chief complaints which have been made with regard to Kenya have been in regard to forced labour not on railways but in certain other directions for the benefit
of white settlers. Many of us would be glad, in view of the unfavourableo way in which Kenya compares with other dependencies in East Africa, to see Kenya excluded from the benefit of this guaranteed loan. We should be glad on the merits, or I might say on the demerits, of Kenya's record. In making that suggestion I have behind me the high authority of Lord Delamere, the Mussolini of Kenya. I read in the "Times" of the 10th ultimo the report of a speech by Lord Delamere which, I suppose, has been conveyed to the Colonial Office:
Lord Delamere, expressing the opinion of the elected members, urged that the loan be raised as a Kenya Transport Loan on the sole credit of the Colony without an Imperial guarantee, and to allow the country to work out its future untrammelled by Treasury control"—
untouched by the cold and clammy hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Gentleman.
Lord Delamere considered of particular importance the proposed Dodoma-Fife Railway, which would unite Tanganyika, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and make it more difficult for a Defeatist Government in Great Britain to return Tanganyika to its former owners.
I know the Colonial Office have been greatly influenced in the past by the forcible personality of Lord Delamere and I hope that proper weight has been given on this occasion to his desire to contract out of the benefits of this £10,000,000 loan. I am sure there are many projects in the other East African Colonies which could well compete for the balance of the loan. Many of us would be glad to see Kenya drop out of the allocation altogether.
In the second place, as to the allocation between different purposes, I hope we shall get a definite statement later on as to what proportion of this loan in East Africa is to be devoted to purposes of native welfare, to use a phrase which is found in this Report. We attach great importance on this side of the House to the development of native welfare through better health conditions, through proper research into diseases and through improved educational facilities, improved water supply and so on. A whole series of objects has been catalogued in the Report of the Under-Secretary himself and referred to in the Schuster Committee Report—objects of
native welfare on which money should be spent, and if there is any sincerity at all in the talk, some of it I think rather cant talk, about trusteeship for the natives, if it is really true, as some of us believe, that we hold these territories primarily as trustees for the natives' interests, we want to know what is going to be done to transform that pious expression from a phrase into a reality and what fraction of the loan is to be allotted to purposes of native welfare. Furthermore, apart from native welfare, what proportion of the expenditure on railways, roads, and so on, is going to be devoted primarily to the opening up of areas in which the natives own or occupy the land and in which the native population constitutes the producing population and in which the natives produce for themselves, and not for white planters? What proportion of the railways it is proposed to build is going to serve predominantly native areas, and what proportion is going to serve areas inhabited by Lord Delamere and other white planters? Some of us have a suspicion that too large a proportion of this money will go to serve what we may call the white planter areas, and too small a proportion to the predominantly native areas. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to show us that that suspicion is unfounded.
I would like to comment upon one fact, in passing, from the point of view of trade. We have heard a great deal about the importance of opening up these East African dependencies in order to increase trade and employment in this country. It is exceedingly important to increase the purchasing power of the native population. At the present time—I am not going into detail—the purchasing power of the native populations in East Africa is miserably less than the purchasing power of the native populations in West Africa.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE indicated assent.

Mr. DALTON: The Under-Secretary agrees. One way of increasing the purchasing power of the natives in East Africa is by allocating a considerable part of the proceeds of this loan to encourage native production and economic development on sound lines in areas inhabited predominantly by natives, as distinct from white planters Anyone reading the Schuster Report
will be astonished to find the inefficient, slip-shod way in which these projects for railway construction, harbour improvement, and so on have been brought forward. One might say, without misrepresenting the Report, that the conclusions at which the Schuster Committee have come is, that the great majority of the schemes that have been put up for participation in this loan are schemes which have not been properly thought out or properly worked out at all. Proposals have been put forward for railways to be built, and they have, apparently, been put up by people who just took a map and said, "There is a railway there. There is a railway here. If we make a railway through the middle, we can make a connection and develop the trade of the country."
It is continually represented in the Report that no proper survey has been made of the routes which the railways are to follow, no economic surveys have been made, no topographical surveys, and no proper businesslike working out of the plans. That is a very serious reflection upon the competence of the Colonial Office. They have had over two years in which to prepare this matter. It is a reflection upon the competence of the local governments that they should ask for a guarantee for millions of money without having taken the pains to get businesslike surveys made, and details worked out. I do not wonder that the Treasury, always willing to take any excuse to stop expenditure, whether good or bad, should have pounced upon some of these proposals and turned them down, on the very obvious ground that they had not been clearly thought out and considered.
I should like to know what steps are being taken to comply with tile recommendations of the Schuster Report, including the recommendation in which they say:
We venture to express the view that it might prove a sounder method for encouraging development, within the Empire to create machinery which would provide for the continuous study of new developments and afford the various Dependencies an assurance that they would have fair chances at all times to raise money for really sound and carefully prepared projects.
Has any such machinery been created? Is it intended to create such machinery, or are we to risk embarking large sums of money upon plans which have no
sound basis in foresight and preparation? These are questions to which a party, and the representative of a party, who pride themselves upon being Empire builders, should be particularly anxious to give satisfactory answers. The proposals that have been considered in the Schuster Committee Report are proposals not for Empire building but for jerrybuilding, of the very shoddiest description. I could read passage after passage. I would refer, for instance, to the proposal for a bridge over the Zambesi, referred to on page 20 of the Schuster Report, concerning which the Committee say:
As a preliminary to any final decision, the following are required.
Then follow nine separate inquiries, nine separate duties of surveying, investigating, estimating, and so on, to be carried out by competent people on the spot before it can be decided whether money should be embarked upon this project or not. What an instance of incompetence and slothfulness on the part of the Colonial Office that none of these things have been looked into. I hope the Under-Secretary will have something to tell us in extenuation of the very serious criticism implicit in the Schuster Report.
Now I turn to the question of Palestine. On that I have relatively little to say, beyond the fact that we are not making a loan of £4,500,000 or guaranteeing a loan of £4,500,000 at all. What we are doing is to guarantee them a loan in order that they shall pay back to the taxpayers of this country £1,500,000, and further sums amounting to £3,000,000 altogether, described as a clearance of past obligations. It is always worth while to guarantee loans to other people, providing that the proceeds of those loans pass back to us. I can imagine very good finance being conducted on quite a wide scale on that principle. We could guarantee a loan to France on condition that all the proceeds are paid back to us. That might be a final settlement of inter-Allied debts.
Actually, when you have subtracted all of what I might call the bogus operations as far as the development of Palestine is concerned, you have left a sum of £1,500,000 actually to be spent on developments in Palestine, chiefly, I
gather, on harbours, railways and so on. I am not aware that any Committee comparable to the Schuster Committee has been invited to examine and throw cold water upon those projects. I have not seen it, and it has not been published to this House. All I need say further on the Palestine issue is that the sum we propose to lend for development is relatively small, that we in the Labour party have always supported the Zionist experiment as being bold and hopeful, and we shall certainly do nothing to prevent it from receiving the financial help which is necessary to give it a fair chance of life and success in the future.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER: While I must confess that there were very many parts of the hon. Member's speech with which I profoundly and cordially disagree, there was one point which I think a good many Members on this side of the Committee may share in common with him, and that is, a certain questioning as to the wisdom of the delay which has been shown in acting upon what he terms the "Ormsby-Gore Report." It is not that we are surprised that the Schuster Committee should have watered-down, as he called it, the recommendations of that Report, because second consideration in a matter as complicated as this was almost bound to suggest doubts and to visualise obstacles. The Ormsby-Gore Report never pretended to be a detailed scheme. If hon. Members read the Report they will see that detailed recommendations throughout that Report were definitely eschewed. There are a thousand and one difficulties that must hold up any attempt to get too rapid a move on in this matter: difficulties connected with labour, and financial charges that are coming to the Colony in 1934. At the same time, it does seem to me that we cannot read the history of our Colonies without realising that there is a tide in the affairs of a Colony which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Once they are neglected, one may never recapture the opportunity omitted.
Can anyone doubt at the moment, taking, for instance, the Colony of Kenya, which is occupying people's minds so much, that it has shown a rapid and singularly promising development? We have just sent to it a very able Governor, who has tackled, so far as one has, followed his speeches, the very many diffi-
culties and problems with which that Colony is confronted, with singular tact and discrimination. A single false step from one in authority in Kenya just now might further embitter feelings which have been so greatly roused and stirred, very often through the unsympathetic treatment which certain of the parties out there have received from quarters in this country. We ought to look at this question particularly from the point of view of the man on the spot. There is a danger that if they continually find themselves checked from the home country, the people who are trying to pull the discordant elements together out there, may have their task rendered more difficult. We need to back the people who are doing good work there in pulling together the discordant elements, in developing scientific research, and in trying to turn men's minds out there from discordant quarrels to constructive harmony.
There is one further point, which I would like to emphasise, and that is, the whole question of the future status of the harbour of Kilindini. There, we had quite definitely a report from the people on the spot., which gas checked from home by another authority which reported in a different sense from that of local opinion. I am not for a moment saying that it had not a right so to report. It represented larger interests, and it represented, as the Governor said, the interests of those who approached the harbour from the sea rather than those who sent goods down to the harbour. This question has been held up and we cannot find out, although question after question has been asked, whether or when the Colonial Office are going to come to a final decision upon the future status of Kilindini Harbour. That is the kind of thing that breaks the hearts of the people on the spot.
Surely, even if the Schuster Commission is right, and I am not qualified to say whether it is or is not right, in holding up this improvement from the financial side, upon the question of getting a quick decision in regard to this harbour, surely there can be no doubt that we should so proceed as to reach the very earliest conclusion. It is the only thing that we can we interfere with the Government out there in all sorts of ways, and perhaps rightly, but it is our duty to meet them and to help
them by giving them a clear and definite decision, and a quick decision. Until that is done, you have that bottle-neck which is never clear. The longer we put off the decision, the more difficult it is to balance the arguments for the development of the lighterage side and the docking side. I hope that before the Committee passes from this subject we shall have a definite statement from the Colonial Office that before the House meets again a decision will have been reached upon this point.

Mr. W. BAKER: As a supporter of the proposal to grant a £10,000,000 loan to East Africa, I find myself in very considerable difficulty in this discussion. I am in a difficulty because I do not understand exactly what value is to be attached to the Report of the East African Guarantee Loan Committee. I have read that Report very carefully. If I felt that we were considering that Report here to-night, and that the Report was to be the basis of the future action of the Government, I would be willing to acquiesce, and I would have nothing more to say. But I am very disturbed, because I feel that, while we have before us the Schuster Report, we have absolutely no guarantee that when the House has agreed to the money being spent, the Government will follow the lines which have been laid clown in that Report, and I would particularly draw the attention of the Committee to the Note which the Secretary of State for the Dominions has placed on page 3 as a preface to the Report. He says:
The Secretary of State wishes it to he clear that in issuing the Report he should not be taken as having accepted the recommendation of the Committee and, in particular, that, he does not accept their recommendations as to the Amani Institute.
What I have to say is not directed to the Amami Institute, hut those words, being there, I quote them. The Note continues:
Further, he wishes to emphasise the fact that, in view of the urgency of the matter, he has had no opportunity of consulting the local Governments concerned, and that it will be necessary for him to invite and consider their comments before any recommendations contained in the Report are or are not accepted by him.
I think at this point I might associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) with regard to delay. It does seem remarkable that the Government should place
the Report of the Schuster Committee before the House for consideration without any definite understanding as to when and whether any of those recommendations in that Report are to be adopted by the Government when the Resolution has been passed, and my concern becomes the greater when I find, on reference to the discussion which took place on the 21st July, that the Secretary of State for the Dominions is reported as saying:
The Committee (that is, the Schuster Committee) also recommend in Tanganyika the Dodoma-Fife line at an estimated cost of £2,700,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1926; col. 1332, Vol. 198.]
It may be that my ability to read the Report is at fault, but when I turn up the report of the Schuster Committee, I find that, instead of recommending the proposal, they absolutely turn it down, and give their reasons for so doing. That, I think, brings me to the point of criticism with regard to this Financial Resolution with which I am most concerned. I do not think there is any serious difficulty except in so far as Kenya is concerned. My hon. Friend gave expression to his feelings with regard to Lord Delamere. He quoted from one speech which was made by Lord Delamere, but I think there is more to be said with regard to that noble gentleman. Lord Delamere, as my hon. Friend said, is anxious to escape from the control and influence of the Treasury and of the Colonial Office, in order to work his Imperial purposes in Africa. I submit to this Committee that so long as Kenya occupies its present relation toward the British Empire, the leading spokesman for the settlers in Kenya should be a little bit more respectful toward the Colonial Office and the Treasury.
I want, particularly, to draw the attention of the Committee to a pronouncement by Lord Delamere, in which he stated that if the policy was to he that every native was to be a landowner of a, sufficient area on which to establish himself, then the question of obtaining a sufficient supply of labour would never be settled. I fancy that the question of labour is going to present very serious difficulties as far as this loan is concerned. I think we are entitled to ask the Government that in any expenditure
which takes place as the result of this loan, no labour will be forced on to public works, and, further, that no labour will be persuaded to work on behalf of a public authority, when that labour is urgently needed for the development of the holdings which are held by the natives themselves. I am unable to give the quotation, but I understand the Under-Secretary has publicly declared himself in favour of helping the natives to develop and cultivate their own land. I am very glad the Under-Secretary has taken that point of view, because it would appear that the whole struggle is likely to centre round that point, and it is on that that the serious point of difference exists between the Colonial Office and the settlers in Kenya.
It is absolutely important that the developments which are to take place as a result of this loan shall be developments in the best interests of the whole community, and in the interests of the future of Africa, and I do hope the Under-Secretary will be able to give an assurance that influences will not be allowed to operate which will have the effect of substituting for the Report of the Schuster Committee other proposals which, in their effect, will be designed, not to serve the future of Africa, but to add to the large accumulation of wealth which many of the middlemen hope to secure. I realise how difficult it is. I realise that in this part of Africa, as in other parts of Africa, men have been persuaded to buy land at an excessive cost, in the belief that they stood a chance of developing the country to their own permanent benefit, and these men naturally, having bought the land, like to secure a return which is difficult to obtain unless native labour is available. I believe the Under-Secretary is endeavouring to hold the balance very fairly indeed, and my great hope to-night is that the criticisms from this side of the House will be accepted as an endeavour to strengthen his hands against those interested persons who are anxious to obtain freedom in order to thwart the Government in Kenya.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) stated that there had been a fall in Government and trustee securities, and the Financial Secretary, I think, called him
a joker. If only the Financial Secretary would realise what a fall there has been in Government and trustee securities since the Conservative party came into power, I feel that he would not take so lightheartedly the remark made by the hon. Member for Peckham. In fact, if it had not been for the fall, I certainly would not have been making a speech to-night, because should have felt it was not my duty to point out the tremendous amount of subsidy and guarantee which has been given by the present Conservative Government. I enjoyed the speech made by the Secretary of State on the 21st July. It was an optimistic speech, and I sincerely hope the Under-Secretary will consider that any criticism I put forward will be of a constructive kind. It is very easy to criticise, but I can assure him that in anything I can say I will endeavour to make it constructive.
I want to divide my speech into two special parts; one is financial and the other is development. With regard to the first—the financial—I think a broad view must be taken of any Empire financial development, but when it comes to the guarantee of the principal and interest of £14,500,000, I cannot help thinking that it is an immense sum, and, in fact, almost more than the country can bear at the present time. It can only be obtained from the savings of the people, and as they have gone down owing to the trouble we have had in industry, it makes the position more difficult. The interest of 5 per cent. on this gigantic sum comes to £725,000 a year. If is a great amount for any colony to pay, and the money is to be spent, roughly, about £8,000,000 on railways, £1,600,000 on ports, and £2,750,000 odd on roads, etc. But what is the policy with regard to this expenditure? I feel that if we are going to make this very large expenditure, we should be certain, as I think the hon. Member for Peckham stated, that there should be employment in this country. I had a question down to the Secretary of State on the 17th November last with regard to imports into some of these Colonies, and the percentage that was British. From Tanganyika, from January to July, 1926, only 40 per cent. represented imports from Great Britain; and from Kenya and Uganda, from January to July, 1926,
41 per cent. was British. But when we come to Palestine, from January to July, 1926, the percentage of British was only 10.3. I had a question down to-day to the Secretary for Overseas Trade with regard to Palestine, and I find in his reply that articles wholly or mainly manufactured which go into Palestine, out of a total from January to July of £2,197,000, £254,000 were British and £1,900,000 foreign. Is that the policy? That is not going to give employment to this country. I cannot help thinking that we are playing skittles with our credit in advancing this large amount for principal and interest guaranteed, and which is not to the benefit of this country. I do not know whether it is the view of the Treasury that this is perfectly safe, perfectly sound finance. All this £14,500,000 must come out of the savings of t4 people, and, I repeat again, our savings are considerably less to-day than they were previous to the coal trouble.
8.0 P.M.
There is one point I would like specially to bring to the notice of the Under-Secretary, and it is with regard to the Uganda Railway. He knows the Uganda Railway far better than I do, but why is it necessary to guarantee this at all? The hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir S. Henn) is not here, but he stated in a speech in July:
What need is there to give a Government guarantee in the case of a railway which is paying its way?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July; col. 1353, Vol. 198.]
He, I understand, knows the country. Why should we give a guarantee on this particular railway Why cannot the railway raise the money without this guarantee of principal and interest of the taxpayer? I put a question down at the beginning of 1926 as to the net earnings of this particular railway. The reply showed that in 1923 the net earnings were £415,000, in 1924 £756,000, and in 1925 £778,000. Why should the taxpayer guarantee this railway? I am all in favour of trying to help the Dominions and Colonies in every way possible, especially financially, but money and savings are scarce and will be scarcer. But here is something that has been going on for many years and is paying its way, and why the taxpayers should guarantee a large sum on this particular railway, I do not see.
The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said on 21st July:
There is thus a substantial surplus for renewals, betterments, and loan charges, and the policy until 1934 is to use this surplus for the improvement and development of the railway system in East Africa itself, and only after 1934 to deal with the question of repayment to this country of the interest on the original expenditure incurred."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, col. 1334, Vol. 198.]
That is milking the taxpayer too much. I contend that it is not business. The Labour party when they were in power did almost as badly. They gave this particular railway £3,500,000 free of interest for five years. That is not business. Surely this House can endeavour to protect the taxpayer in a better way than it has done in the past. When you think that your National Debt is higher than it was in 1919, when you consider that your interest charges, the management charges of the National Debt were greater last year than they were in 1921–22, I feel that it is time that every protest should be made to help the taxpayer to reduce this gigantic expenditure. Anybody who looks at the Budgets of these small Colonies and Protectorates will see that the margins are very small. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what would be the position of Kenya owing to the fall in the price of cotton. Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Kenya does not produce any cotton.

Sir F. WISE: Well, Uganda. I understand that there has been a very heavy fall, and it must affect the budget of that country. Who is going to pay the interest on a big loan? The margin of the budget will be smaller than ever. I do not want to disparage any development in Uganda, but I want to look at it from the taxpayers' point of view. I think it would have been far better if the Conservative Government had given a Grant-in-Aid instead of this large loan. But that is a matter of policy. With regard to Palestine, there is £4,500,000 to be guaranteed principal and interest and at 5 per cent. the interest would be £225,000, but Palestine is on quite a different footing from East Africa. That country has tourists, and about £500,000 subscribed annually by the Zionists.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: £2,000,000 a year.

Sir F. WISE: Well, the country is all the better off therefore, and it might be argued that there was no reason for guaranteeing this loan. That is all I have to say with regard to the financial proposition, and in regard to the guaranteeing this large loan of £14,500,000.
My second point is development. I am not hostile in any way to development, but we want wise expansion. We want not development in theory, but development in practice, and I mean by that that we should not develop unless we can see some sort of return on our money invested in the next two or three or four years. I have studied all the Reports that have been made in regard to East Africa, and I feel that anybody who studied the Schuster Report would never advance money against that Report. Take it down to the City, and ask if anybody will advance money on that Report. There may be some reason for it being bad, but in nearly every scheme proposed there is a suggestion of a survey. If it is a case of a survey, why not leave this guarantee alone, or reduce the amount until you have made a survey, but do not go and develop until you are certain that your survey is in order and is properly carried out. Then there is the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee, which advises great caution, and states:
It is no doubt that the ambition of Mombasa is to become the Bombay of East Africa, but it must not be forgotten that there are other ports in the same area, such as Tanga and Dar-es-Salaam, which will compete. The maintenance of the right proportion of wharves and lighterage involves the balancing of many factors. What appears to be the second best may in the long run prove to be the more progressive policy.
This is very important. Money has been lost in other ports which have been developed, and I do hope that there will be very great caution taken before this money is spent. Anybody who looks back into history must see that after the Napoleonic Wars, Britain more or less built the whole of the railways of the United States of America, but we built them with individual money and not with the taxpayers' money or guarantee. Practically everyone of these railways have been in liquidation. The individuals lost their money, and I do not want the taxpayers to lose their money
through any indifference on the part of this Government guaranteeing these large amounts. Take Canada; that country was in the same position. The individual who invested in the Canadian railways lost millions of money, but that again was the individual. The individual goes in at his own option. If he wants to invest he can do so and run the risk of losing his money, but why should the taxpayer run any risk at all? I contend it is against the interests of the nation to encourage these guarantees such as the Government have been encouraging in the last year or so.
In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Financial Secretary and the Under-Secretary will look into this large amount-and it is a large amount—most carefully, before it is actually offered to the public. Let us see that every scheme is properly surveyed, and if we are going to guarantee this £14,500,000 let us see that British goods are bought co as to give employment and do good in this country and help to benefit this country. Let us have prudent finance and prudent, development in this great big guarantee which is before the Committee at the present time.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I will not claim any immunity on account of a maiden speech, although I suppose that technically it is a maiden speech. I had intended to say a few words, but had I intended to reserve myself, the speech to which I have just listened would have brought me to my feet. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) is recognised as the greatest financial expert on that side of the House. For three weeks I have not had the pleasure of listening to him. On the other hand, I have been hearing ad nauseam that the policy of the party opposite is to develop the British Empire. Yet the moment that the Colonial Office come forward with schemes for developing the British Empire and the mandated territory, we have this damaging, punching, wounding attack from the hon. Gentleman opposite. He tells us that we are asking the taxpayer to finance the railways in East Africa and that the City would not look at it. Those patriots in the City who at every election time have such a care for the British Empire and the Union Jack prefer to lend their money to Germany
at 8 per cent. They shrink from putting any money into these territories which have been won at such a cost by British blood and sacrifice. The hon. Member for Ilford, one of the patriots for the City—

Sir F. WISE: I was never in the City.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member is above the City; I apologise.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: He is an ex-Mayor of Ilford.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: He represents the financial brains of this country. He speaks of £14,000,000 for building railways and harbours, and constructive developments, but we have in this country spent £8,000,000,000 on destruction. These £14,000,000 are to be spent on creating work, and yet the hon. Member for Ilford holds up his financial hands in horror at this terrible extravagance. He talks of "playing skittles" with £14,000,000, but he helped to vote £115,000,000 this year for the Navy alone. So much for the Conservative policy of binding the Empire together, and of developing our own great Imperial territories. However, I would like also to point out that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford is finite wrong in his facts. This is not new money for Palestine. It is it in the nature of a public loan. The greater part goes to pay for works done by the British Army, and we are getting money back, and we are getting a much better bargain than in the case of Mesopotamia.

Sir F. WISE: We guarantee to Palestine £4,500,000, so it comes to the same thing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, we are guaranteeing it for a railway which the British Army built, and which is now being used for the general traffic of the country. In the case of Mesopotamia we have wiped a similar debt off, and therefore we are actually getting money back in the ease of Palestine. I have a slight grievance in this matter however. In July when this Vote came forward the Colonial Office very astutely lumped the two together—Palestine and the African loans. The result of that was that we had an extremely interesting statement on the East African loans and the Rhodesian loans, and not one word about Palestine. Those of us who are in-
terested in Palestine did not intervene in the Debate, but there were a few words from the Front Bench stating the official Labour policy. That is the only opportunity we have had of discussing this great experiment of carrying out an ancient aspiration. But I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) that this is not really an experiment. The Balfour policy is not an experiment. It is setting the British seal on approval on one of the most wonderful human urges the world has ever seen.

Mr. DALTON: I did not desire to use the word "experiment" in any derogatory sense at all. I merely desired to suggest that after this great lapse of time this policy was somewhat of the nature of an experiment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. At any rate, he stated that the Labour party supported the proposal. Does the hon. Member for Ilford know that since the reconquest of Palestine £10,000,000 of Jewish money has been subscribed in small sums by the poor people of the ghettoes of Eastern Europe, and that this money has been used for the building of hospitals and schools and public works and roads. Not one penny of this guaranteed loan goes into the Zionist Fund at all. The Under-Secretary of State will bear me out in this; and it is all nonsense for a certain section of the anti-Semitic Press to say "all these millions for Palestine." It is absolute nonsense. The Zionists are subscribing the money themselves. They are ridding the country of disease, nursing the Arab sick, doing wonderful work, and getting not one penny from us. We are doing very well out of this indeed. When the hon. Member for Ilford speaks of the port in East Africa, where immense developments are taking place, may I refer him to what his new colleague the right hon. Member for Carmarthen (Sir A. Mond) has said about Palestine. The right hon. Gentleman went to Palestine the other day, and when he came back he passed severe strictures on British business men in not being more enterprising in pushing their goods in that country. He said that there were no signs of British enterprise there, and I
have no doubt the hon. Member for Ilford will agree with me that his new colleague is a pretty good judge of these matters.
Let me draw attention to the heavy imports from Palestine into this country. The trade is good, and the Port of Hafia will be one of the greatest ports in the Near East. Most of the shipping that goes to this port is, I am glad to say, British shipping. T must renew my protest against the action of the Colonial Office. It is very unfair to link these two matters together in one Motion. Once again we have gut into an interesting discussion about the relations of Lord Delamere with the Government, and the Government's relation with the white settlers, and once that hare is started it will be chased all night and we shall have no opportunity of discussing the very interesting questions concerning Palestine. We have not had a moment's discussion of this subject. As soon as we get into the Colonial Office Estimates all the pioneers of West Africa and East Africa at once begin on their pet topic and the subject of Palestine is absolutely swamped.
If we are funding this loan for Palestine, may I ask this question? Are we really going to do all we can to encourage the settlement of Palestine? In every other mandated area we have tried to attract settlers by giving them good terms for land settlement. In the case of Palestine all the land has to be bought in the open market, and land speculators are having a very good time indeed. And the price is rising. That is not quite fair. There are certain lands which should be available, land which is known as Crown lands. Can the Under-Secretary give us some guarantee that the Government are alive to the evils of land speculation in Palestine and are seeking ways and means to make the land available for settlement. The Zionists are doing very good service, indeed, by pouring their money into the country, setting up a number of services, and sending not only poor refugees, but business men of experience, who are setting up factories and employing labour. I think they should he encouraged. There is a danger in another direction. The wicked Bolshevists are offering land for nothing in the Crimea. I do not. know how that experiment is going to turn out, but they
are making that offer to the Jewish people, who have a land hunger, to settle in the Crimea. They are giving that land for nothing and also lending money. I do not think it will have much effect because I believe the call of Palestine is too strong. But I would point out that the action of the Russian Government in the Crimea stands out in such contrast to British action in Palestine as to constitute a slight danger to the Zionist effort in Palestine.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: May I suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that the land in the Crimea is available free because it has been confiscated from the previous owners. We are not confiscating the land in Palestine.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Under-Secretary of State is misinformed on that point. The land which is being given is former Crown property, grand ducal estates, the appenage of the Crown. The land the British Government holds in Palestine is former Ottoman Crown land, and it is occupied by Arab squatters, men without capital, without experience and unable to cultivate the land. They are not putting the land to the best use. However, I do not want to press this point too much because I know the Colonial Office is trying to find ways and means for dealing with this question. I know there are difficulties, but I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us to-night that the Colonial Office is alive to the need of making more land available for settlement and stopping the land speculation. I know they are trying to do their best for the Zionists, and I hope we shall have a courageous statement from the Under-Secretary. In view of the fact that we have had no discussion of this extremely important subject since the present. Government took office, I think we ought to have a declaration to-night, and I invite the Under-Secretary to make it.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: I would like to congratulate the Labour party on the inclusion in its ranks of an hon. and gallant Member who shows such a keen interest in Empire development. With the hon. and gallant Member as Prime Minister, and the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) as Chancellor of the Exchequer to curb his enthusiasm, we should
have an ideal leadership. At the same time I must say that, although I agree very largely with what has fallen from the hon. Member for Ilford, I am rather disappointed. If the men who were the original pioneers and developers of the Empire had had the same views as the hon. Member, very little would have been done. My memory goes back 25 years when a population of 60,000 people borrowed £3,500,000 to take water from the coast to the gold fields of Western Australia. At that time it was called "finance run mad." But the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. That loan will be paid off next month. A 3 per cent. sinking fund was provided. At the same time the loan enabled the gold fields to develop and to produce no less than £160,000,000 worth of gold.

Sir F. WISE: Have guaranteed that money?

Sir N. MOORE: The guaranteed it.

Sir F. WISE: Not the British taxpayer?

Sir N. MOORE: No, but I am giving an example of what the hon. Members' narrow-minded policy would lead to in a country that wants to develop. I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member for Ilford, and I am very glad that we have in this House such watch dogs over financial expenditure, but I am not going to say that I subscribe to the whole of his doctrines. I speak as a surveyor and engineer. If I had had to put through railway Bills, and with as little information as is provided in this case, I had had to persuade the House to pass them, I would never have got them through. Fancy asking the House to give this money without a survey having been made, without any information as to what the tunnels or the bridges will be like! The information submitted here is an insult to the intelligence of ordinary business men who look at the matter from a business point of view. After the criticism that has been heard to-night, I hope that the Colonial Office will investigate the proposals carefully, and will take no action until it has been found, as a result of a survey and close investigation, that the works are advisable. One matter that has not been referred to, though of the greatest im-
portance, is the question of the gauges. We must be careful not to repeat the mistakes, made in the past with regard to gauges. In Africa at the present time, from the North through Egypt and the Sudan, the gauge is 3 feet 6 inches. It is the same from the Cape upwards. Yet we have in some other places gauges of 3 feet 3 inches and 3 feet, and from Beira down to Lourenco Marques it is 2 feet. Provision must be made at terminals, in cuttings and on bridges, so that eventually it will be possible to use the standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches. I would impress on the Colonial Office and its engineers the necessity of taking special care that provision is made in construction work for this wider gauge.
The reason why this House has given its approval to the guarantee in the past has been that the expenditure would provide a certain amount of employment in this country. We have the total cost of the railway, but we are not told how much is to be spent on rolling stock or on rails. Those details are left to the imagination. I hope that in course of his reply the Under-Secretary will give us information on these points. No attempt has been made to give any estimate of what the revenue may be. As a rule, when a railway is constructed in a new country, the first thing done is to complete a survey of the new land. The land is generally classified so as to give some idea as to how many people will be carried, what sort of population there is, and whether the revenue will justify the construction. What has been said in regard to private enterprise constructing these railways is all very well, but in new countries private enterprise cannot do it. Private enterprise is not going to put down a railway through virgin country without knowing what the revenue will be. The only alternative is one which I would always recommend should be avoided, and that is to give a land grant to the railway. The experience of, Australia in one case, that of the Great Southern Railway, was that they got 12,000 acres per mile for every mile built, and at the end of the time it was necessary to buy the railways and the land. It is greatly preferable in a new country that the State should lay the railway. Everyone knows my views about private enterprise and State
enterprise. There is a proper place for each. In a new country the State should build the railway and reap the benefit of the increment that will come. That is a sound proposition. It is a different question in old countries with big populations.

Mr. R. McNEILL: I did not intend to be drawn into the very tempting region which my hon. Friend touched upon in the concluding part of his speech. The real reason why I venture to intervene now is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), in a speech last Jul-, made some rather pointed references to the attitude of the Treasury, and commented on the fact that no representative of the Treasury had spoken that evening. I notice that my right hon. Friend has sat with great patience through the present Debate. I think it is due to if for no other reason, that I should make some response to the challenge that ho made, although it was made some months ago. I was not quite able to make out from the right hon. Gentleman's speech, nor could I make out from the speech delivered from the Front Opposition Bench this evening, exactly wheat the attitude of the party opposite is to the proposals which are now before us. The right hon. Gentleman certainly said that he was not opposed to the schemes of development which this proposal is designed to support. His words were:
We are not hostile to the development by any means.
At an earlier date the party opposite had shown that that was their attitude, because I find that as long ago as July, 1924, a Member of the party opposite, speaking in another place, announced that they were in favour of this country standing behind loans for the development of Palestine. Lord Arnold justified that attitude, because, although the needs of Palestine for development were great, it would be impossible for that country, without the British guarantee behind them, to get the necessary financial means, except on very prohibitive terms. Therefore, I am entitled to assume that the party opposite, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), who spoke this evening, are supporters of the general principle underlying these proposals, and that if they
object to the proposals they object to them on matters of detail or of merit.
The right hon. Gentleman and some other speakers have laid a good deal of stress upon the attitude of the Schuster Report. They say that the Schuster Report is full of provisional recommendations and calls for a great number of surveys. They tell us that these are very insufficient grounds on which to ask the British Treasury to give these guarantees. It is quite true that there are provisional recommendations in the Schuster Report, and they do call for a good many surveys, but I think the attitude which some hon. Members have taken up on this point shows a good deal of misapprehension as to the method which will be pursued if we accept this Resolution and the Bill which will be founded upon it. If the hon. Members who lay so much stress on the insufficiency of the Report turn to paragraph 27 they will find the reason advanced by the Committee for not making a recommendation in respect of one of these schemes. They say:
It does not appear to us justifiable to hold up other developments for which there appears to be an immediate need and commercial justification and which will probably exhaust the full amount of £10,000,000 for the sake of reserving so large a proportion of this sum for a project which is at present vague and undefined.
This shows that although they took up an attitude of reserve in regard to a good many of the specific schemes with which they were dealing, they came to the conclusion that there was a sufficient number of schemes with commercial justification to exhaust the whole amount of the loan to be guaranteed. Supposing this view to be wrong—and this I think is where the misapprehension of many hon. Members comes in—supposing, in point of fact, that there is not a sufficient number of schemes which on close investigation prove to be sufficiently sound, and with good enough hopes of remuneration to justify a guarantee, then the guarantee will not be exhausted. Surely hon. Members do not think that this whole loan of £10,000,000 and also the smaller loan of £4,000,000 will be issued and guaranteed forthwith when this Resolution and the Bill which follows have been accepted, or without any further scrutiny as to how it will be used. That will not be the case at all. If the
Resolution be accepted, the Bill will make it quite clear, in a form familiar to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh that the Treasury will not sanction guarantees until they have satisfied themselves as to the soundness of the particular ventures involved. They will consult the expert committee which will be in a position to advise them. It may well be, when some of the surveys recommended by the Schuster Committee have been made, that in the light of those surveys and of the advice given to the Treasury, they may say that schemes A, B, C or D seem useful from the point of view of the development of the territory and seem to hold out the prospect of sufficient remuneration to make them sound financial propositions. Then those schemes will be sanctioned and carried out within the limits of this sum of £10,000,00. The Resolution only says that the amount is not to exceed £10,000,000. It does not put any obligation on the Government or the Treasury to spend the whole of that amount at once.

Mr. MacLAREN: In the event of money being advanced will the Government take strict precautions to see that they are recouped for advances in respect of any of these ventures? I understand there has been some question with regard to ventures carried out previously in this connection, and it is not enough to advance the money without safeguarding the Government.

Mr. McNEILL: At every step the greatest possible care will be taken by the Treasury to see to that, as far as they can. The Treasury cannot themselves have personal expert knowledge of this country. They can only act on the expert knowledge which is available to them. They will, as far as possible, safeguard themselves against guaranteeing what might be described as wild-cat schemes. Whatever they guarantee will be considered by them to be good sound schemes, well-secured and likely to be of advantage from the point of view of the development of the territory and also, we hope, from the point of view of securing orders for our own trade in this country, and consequently giving employment to our own people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh, speaking in July
last, referred to the strain upon our credit. I am not complaining of that at all. I agree with him. I think he said something to this effect, that although the sum involved might be a small matter compared with the total indebtedness of the country, still it was a sum which we ought not to guarantee light-heartedly. I agree. The hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) was also concerned as to the strain which might be placed upon our credit in view of the undoubted need of conserving it to the very best of our ability, in view of conversion necessities in the future. That is all quite true. But these loans up to the amount of £14, 000, 000 are not going to be issued straight away. They will be issued from time to time as the money is needed for development schemes, and with careful watching of the money market, so that they shall be issued in the best circumstances, both from the point of view of the territories out there, and of the taxpayer here.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to me to suggest, as did the hon. Member for Peckham, that a better alternative than to guarantee this sum now would he to set up some form of permanent machinery for dealing out such grants or guarantees as might be wanted from time to time as necessity would arise, and there is a paragraph at the conclusion of the Schuster Report which gives some support to that idea. One speaker this evening quoted that concluding part of the Report, and asked whether we proposed to set up some machinery of that sort. I do not agree with the Schuster Report in that particular, or with those who have taken that line. I am certain that, from the point of view of British credit, it is far better to let the whole world know exactly the limits of our liability once and for all, and that it is much better to guarantee this £14,500,000 under this Resolution than to give Parliamentary sanction to some machinery such as the Schuster Report seems to foreshadow, which would from time to time, as occasion arose, deal with British credit. That would be much the most dangerous way of doing it, and, therefore, it does not appear to me that there is any method which we can carry out for the purpose we have in view except the method adopted.
The right hon. Gentleman, who told us that he and his friends were not hostile to the principle of the Bill, said we could conceivably lower the amount. What would be gained by that? What would possibly be gained by lowering the amount except that from time to time, in respect of, t ay, £2,000,000 at one time and £3,000,000 at another, we should have to come and argue the whole of these cases, taking up the time of Parliament, without any corresponding gain either to the immediate strain upon the taxpayer or from the point of view of our credit? As I say, if the House accepts our proposal now, the money will only be used as and when it is wanted. One or two speakers following the right hon. Gentleman last July——I think the hon. Member for Ilford was one of them—said they hoped that the Treasury would very carefully scrutinize the policy embodied in this Resolution, and asked us, I think, to reconsider it. Very careful consideration by the Treasury was what the right hon. Gentleman opposite demanded last July. Well, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows the Treasury far too well to be under any misapprehension on that point. He knows perfectly well that before any Government could bring down to the House of Commons proposals of this sort, they would have to have gone through very careful consideration by the Treasury, and, therefore, he knows quite well—no one knows better than he—when he sees a Resolution like this on the Order Paper, standing in the name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that it has had the very careful consideration which he thinks it ought to get.
There is only one other point of view on which I would like to say a word, and it is this: the Treasury is always reluctant, and rightly reluctant, either to make an extended use of our credit or to make any demand upon the taxpayer. The natural inclination of the Treasury is always, I am glad to say, niggardliness so far as it can be, but at the same time in a matter of this sort, where a great policy is involved, we have to took at the balance of advantage and disadvantage on one side and the other. The Treasury, in the scrutiny that they have given to the matter, have come to the conclusion, first of all, that there is practically no danger of any loss. There is no danger,
so far as we can see, of the taxpayers being called upon to pay money. They have, as security behind them, not merely the revenue-producing schemes upon which this capital expenditure will be made, but, in addition to that, they have, as a second line of defence, and a very important one, the general revenue of these territories where this development is to take place. These territories are in a perfectly sound financial position. They have all, I think I might say, balanced their ordinary Budgets for some time past, and they are nearly all in the enjoyment of surplus revenue, and, therefore, so far as the Treasury are able to judge—and I think they can judge very well—we do not think there is any danger of our security being called upon.
But there is not only that. The figures of trade were given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Dominions, in considerable detail, last July, and they show that the economic position of these territories, all things considered—considering how new they are and how little development has yet been put into them—is really favourable, and that their trade is expanding. Therefore, surely this is a case, if there ever could be a case, where the British Government may legitimately use either British money or British credit for Imperial development, where it is amply justified in doing so. I can only say, speaking, as I do, in response to the challenge that came from my right hon. Friend opposite some months ago, that, so far as the Treasury are concerned, we have no more misgiving than we are always liable to have in matters of either credit or cash, and we think this is an enterprise to which, as far as the finance of it is concerned, the House of Commons may very well give its sanction.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: It was not anticipated on this side that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would speak at this stage, but may I say at once that I am grateful to him Personally for the information he has given, and I ask the leave of the Committee to say only one or two words in reply, especially as I believe that later to-night the Under-Secretary of State for the Dominions will deal with other speeches in the Debate. May I make it perfectly plain that the Financial Secretary has rightly inter
preted our attitude, which is one of friendship towards these proposals, but the difficulty which some of us raised on a previous occasion is concerned almost purely with the finance of the scheme. It is perfectly true that the Treasury will, of course, in all circumstances see that the fullest safeguards are introduced, but if hon. Members turn to the White Paper, which gives details of the proposals, they will find that these loans — and am thinking here particularly of British East Africa—are to be guaranteed as to principal and interest by the Government of this country, that a sinking fund stretching over a period of 40 years is to be established, that the Government here are to be satisfied with reference to the application of the resources, and that the right to protection of this country is to rank after certain prior charges which already exist in these parts of the world. We come, in that proposal, to the real point at issue. The difficulty is that there is a great deal of controversy at the present time in those territories themselves. It may he perfectly true, as the Financial Secretary has pointed out, that they balance their budgets, but in some cases they have done so on a very narrow basis. There is a great deal of discussion to the effect that. their taxation is getting higher: attention has been called, particularly in the case of Kenya, to their capital liabilities; and one speech was made by a leading authority in that country pointing to what. the state of affairs should be in 1935. We have on one side the proposals of our own White Paper, with all the safeguards to which the Financial Secretary rightly draws attention, and, on the other hand, we have this mass of controversy in the territories, coupled with a strong desire on the part of some people to he rid of Treasury control altogether and to get complete freedom from any assistance of this description.
What is the practical position for any friend of a proposal of this kind in the British Parliament to-night? We have to remember that these loans are going out on to the open market guaranteed in their respective stages by the British Government, and surely it is our common duty to see that they go out on to the market under the most favourable conditions. In point of fact, do they go out under the most favourable con-
ditions, if there is a controversy raging in these territories upon which many people in the British House of Commons have not made up their minds? The important point is that the Treasury have said nothing about any review, except of the most general character, of the financial position of these territories. We should like to know in very much greater detail what is to be done, and what is the precise form of machinery—whether by way of advisory committee similar to that which there is under the Trade Facilities Act, or any more general review—which may be introduced for the purpose of protecting their finance. The Financial Secretary excludes the possibility, as I understand his speech to-night, of anything of the nature of a general board, but he has emphasised that these great schemes of development in East Africa will be stronger and better if they are considered as far as possible as a whole. If they are to be coordinated, and if any kind of co-ordination of that description is in mind, it suggests that the finance must follow the schemes and must itself be on comprehensive lines.
The Financial Secretary apparently excludes the possibility of any body which is going to review the problem on such a basis, and while it. is very difficult to draw an effective analogy between what has happened in Australia, still this fact remains, that—excepting New South wales—there is a kind of general loan council, and strong efforts are being made to bring New South Wales into that council for the express purpose of meeting this financial criticism which has arisen under the operation of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, and the £600 million which Australia has raised in one way or another on the open market. What is the ground of that criticism to-night? It is closely related to some aspects of this problem. It is criticism to the effect that they have not established proper sinking fund arrangements, that they have abused the trustee rights which are accorded to them under the Act of 1900, and I, for my part an enthusiast for schemes of this kind, am very anxious to see that these difficulties are not repeated in British East Africa or any other territory over which we maintain some kind of financial supervision or guarantee.
9.0 p.m.
I am very far from being satisfied that we have taken all possible steps to avoid that result, and I can well imagine—and this is supported by some criticism in the City, that these loans may be floated—not 1:10,000,000 at once, I agree, but in varying stages—under conditions of doubt and criticism. It may well be that these countries would have to pay a little more in the open market, even with the guarantee of the Government thrown in. If because of doubt of that kind there is a very small extra percentage on the amounts which are raised, a serious risk will be run that the budgets of some of the territories for which we are incurring responsibility to-night will not balance. Let. us assume for a moment that they do not balance, and that there is criticism in the territory regarding the burdens, then we should get that prejudice reflected in all the further stages of the development—a prejudice arising because of certain grievances connested with the financial situation. I will not say more now, because we shall have the opportunity of discussing this problem at greater length on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I do want to make our position perfectly plain, because I think the House will agree that unless we are on the soundest ground financially this thing may perish in our hands, and no section of the House would deplore that result more keenly than hon. Members on this side.

Major GLYN: The Committee have heard with very great interest the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), and as East Africa has occupied a good deal of attention this evening I would venture to say a word on Palestine. In this Vote is a sum of £1,115,000 for harbour works for Palestine. When the War ended and Palestine was established and the Zionist movement began, there was an intention on the part of the House of Commons to do everything to make the position of the Arabs happier and more secure than it was under the regime of the Turks. Since then there has been a great advent of Jews into the country from all parts of the Continent, and the most amazing developments have taken place towards making very fruitful a
country which was often supposed to be barren; but until we get effective harbour works somewhere or other in Palestine it will be quite impossible for the revenue of Palestine arising from that development to be such as to repay this House what we have already advanced.
I, Personally, have always felt that the House of Commons could only agree to set up a national home for the Jews provided the rights of the Arabs were respected. All of us who have had the opportunity of knowing the Arabs, and working with them to some extent, feel that we have a tremendous obligation towards them, and that we can best carry out that obligation if we provide the country, out of our experience and our knowledge, with the wherewithal to develop to the utmost. A great deal has been done by the Empire Marketing Board and similar bodies, and there is no doubt that a great many classes of fruit, notably grape fruit, can he produced in Palestine. As far as I know, the grape fruit produced there is far superior to that grown in almost any other place, and it can be conveyed to the London market with ease; but there must be proper facilities for shipment. Anybody who knows the Eastern Mediterranean, knows that sudden gales spring up, and that it is almost impossible to continue loading vessels by the ordinary lighterage methods. There are two possible places where harbours could be established in Palestine, one at Haifa and the other at Jaffa. There are certain reasons why Jaffa will have to be developed to some extent, but I think the main development in Palestine will have to be concentrated at Haifa. The Vote to-night includes a sum of £1,115,000, and I would urge the Committee to look upon this as a really great investment, which will assist Palestine, and Trans-Jordania beyond, to go ahead in their developments; and I believe that by voting this money, and seeing that this development is carried out, we shall prove to the Arabs that we are aware of our obligations to help them to develop, and I feel that under the administration of the present High Commissioner the Arabs fully realise that their rights are more than respected.
There is a feeling of renewed confidence, and although events in other mandatory territory around caused at one time great anxiety, I believe the
policy of the Government has been copied by other Powers who exercise a mandate, and if we help them to go one better by establishing harbours at Haifa, Jaffa and Alexandretta, what we do in that way will help not only the Arabs and the Jews but this country as well. There are parts of Palestine where the soil has not even been scratched, and I hope there will be developments in that country which will enable extra prosperity to flow to the local government, which will enable them to establish better road communication, an improved education, better sanitary conditions, and all those things which we stand for, and I hope the cost will in the end come out of the development of the country.
I regret that in a newspaper, which deservedly has a great circulation in this country, there recently appeared an article in regard to this Vote which was exceedingly misleading. It seems to me that we cannot take our hand from the plough at the present moment. A great work is being done, and we have got to go forward this little bit more, and see to it that, under Treasury supervision, the money is properly spent, so that Arab, Jew and Briton may all prosper as a result of applying scientific methods and adopting the best means of sending the produce of that country to all parts of the world. I hope this proposal will go through with the acclamation of this Committee. I know there are enemies who are always trying to pick holes in our policy, but I hope we shall now decide to go forward with a progressive policy, which I am sure will be for the good of all concerned.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: I have listened with great interest to the informed and sympathetic statement on Palestine which has been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. I do not wish to carry any further the criticisms with regard to the finance of these proposals which have been so ably put forward by the right 17-on. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), but I do want to draw attention to the aspect of these loans in so far as they affect the principle of trusteeship, and especially in relation to East Africa itself. I gather that if the recommendations of the Schuster Committee are carried out, we shall be involved in spending in loans
upwards of something like £10,000,000 in East Africa, £6,500,000 for railway construction, £2,500,000 for harbour works, and about £1,000,000 for roads and other works of development. These are the recommendations flowing from the East African Report, and that Report, in addition to recommending the loaning of that money with the authority of the British Government, also makes other recommendations. For example, it draws attention to the system of taxation which is prevalent in East Africa, and makes recommendations for a modification and improvement in the system of taxation, more particularly in regard to the introduction and the improvement of Income Tax. It may be worth while to draw the attention of the Committee to the recommendations made in the Report itself. On page 175 of the Report of the East Africa Commission they say:
We feel that both trade and non-native enterprise should in the future pay a larger direct contribution towards the revenue of the Colony. Just as in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and throughout the greater part of the Colonial Empire, where non- native enterprise exists, some form of Income Tax should be adopted.
I should like in particular to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs if he will state whether it is proposed to make one of the conditions of granting these loans for East Africa the definite adoption of Income Tax as recommended in the Report from which I have just quoted. The Under-Secretary knows better than I can inform him that, so far as the Europeans in East Africa, are concerned, money is there in plenty. The same Report, in the next paragraph, draws attention to the growing prosperity of the European farmers in Kenya, and I would like to ask whether, in working out the conditions upon which these loans are to be granted, the recommendations of the Report from which I have quoted are definitely going to be applied, and whether we are to see something like a permanent new system of direct taxation applied. This is most important, as hon. Members will appreciate, in so far as the repayment of loans and interest for development in this direction is concerned, because so long as an indirect system of taxation exists, it falls
largely on the shoulders of the natives themselves, and directly it is restricted very much to a poll tax on the natives.
If the Under-Secretary replies that through the Customs duties the Europeans in East Africa are already paying their fair share and therefore it is not really urgent, then we can answer that just as is the case at home, it is absolutely impossible to make an indirect system of taxation approximately equitable. If the Under-Secretary says that there is a proposal in the Estimates for Kenya to tax the Europeans to the extent of £50,000 and that this represents a beginning in this direction, I should like to be told whether that is not a payment exclusively for education and whether that can really be described as a beginning in this direction. When we are told that a very good education is provided for the Europeans in East Africa, I would remind him that it is largely paid for by the natives. According According to the figures they are now having £40 per head spent upon them, and the native himself is largely paying for that. in view of these facts, I do not think the Under-Secretary will try to persuade the House that this £51,000 is really an attempt to lay down a solid foundation, and if these loans are granted I hope a really sound system of Income Tax is going to be introduced in East Africa.
With regard to the working out of our trusteeship, I do not think there is any more important test of trusteeship than the system of taxation in these Dependencies, and the labour conditions that it is proposed to attach to the loans that are to be granted. T do not think there is any part of the British Empire concerning which there has been more complaint of bad labour conditions than in East Africa. In 1919, much opposition was raised in this country concerning the labour regulations in operation, particularly in Kenya, and we did get to the position, in 1920 and 1921, of definitely stating to the natives in Africa that the British Government was not prepared to use the Civil Service organisation in those Colonies to bludgeon the natives into compulsory labour or force them to take up work which, under conditions of freedom, they would refuse. Recent statements rather seem to point to the fact that we are harking back to the old and had policy of 1919, and I should be glad if the Under Secretary would say
whether, in granting these loans, what is commonly known as the dual policy in regard to labour conditions is going to be insisted upon in Africa, or whether, as has been the policy of successive Governments since 1922, the native is going to be left perfectly free either to work on his own estates or to go out and work for the European, without, so far as the organisation of the Government is concerned, any pressure, direct or indirect, being brought to bear.
In that connection I should like the hon. Gentleman to deal with a statement which the present Governor of Kenya is reported to have made on this subject in the course of the present year. He is reported, both in the "Times" and in the "East African Standard, "to be intending to make a very serious departure from that policy. In the "East African Standard" of the 23rd October he is reported to have said:
The Kenya Government does believe that an attitude of positive energy on the part of administrative officials is of the greatest assistance in aiding the flow of labour from the reserves ";
And again, in the "Times" of two days later, he is reported as saying:
He believed an attitude of hostility or neutrality on the part of administrative officers hindered the flow of labour. Therefore, they were now definitely instructed to do their utmost to promote the flow of labour from the reserves, a matter which was of immense importance to the industries of the country.
I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary could give the House a definite assurance that the policy implied in these quotations, if it be attributable to the Governor of Kenya, is not being followed, and that it will be repudiated in the conditions attached to any loan that may be granted.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I do not think that either of those quotations purports to be a quotation from the Governor's speech. They are the gloss put on to his speech by the special correspondent.

Mr. SMITH: According to these papers they are actual quotations of the words that he used. With regard to the whole question of the treatment of labour in relation to the use of this money, whether for harbour construction, port improvements or railways, would the Under-Secretary say with a little more precision in what way native labour is to
be used in the future? He knows, again far better than I can tell him, that in East Africa the whole of the responsible officials are complaining that there is a grave shortage of labour for tile purposes of native cultivation and for the purposes of European cultivation, and that a very large part of their problem, as compared with West Africa, arises from the fact that, while in West Africa labour is relatively plentiful, in East Africa, with the exception of Uganda, it is relatively scarce. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that, instead of attempting to revert to the old bad policy of 1919, and to what I should still say was the relatively bad policy of 1923, the time has come for the British Government to bring pressure to bear in order that men may not be driven or bullied away from their native land into relatively badly paid occupations, breaking up the whole of their moral and conventions and standards, and that, just because labour is scarce, it should be a part of the business of the Government, in the conditions of the loan, to lay increasing emphasis on the possibility of getting higher results when labour is scarce, through the introduction of better technique and better machinery, and the development of a wise, educational policy? Is not the very fact that labour is scarce an overwhelming reason for, may I say, a more reverential treatment of labour? The Under-Secretary knows as well as I do that one of the reasons for the higher wages in the United States is that for a century they have had a relative shortage of labour, which has driven them to improve the mechanical side of industry and develop the technique, so that even a man like Mr. Hoover, the Director of Commerce, tells us quite frankly that, if the waste under modern industrial systems be represented by 100, America is not prepared to give more than 10 in waste of labour, whereas in several cases he has examined he puts down 60, 70 or 80 as waste of capital, waste of organisation and waste in the use of labour.
With regard to research, including education, I gather from the recommendations of the Schuster Committee that it is proposed to spend on research something like £39,000 out of £10,000,000. When Lord Cromer was developing the
Sudan, he laid it down as a principle that in any economic enterprise he always took care to see that a certain proportion of whatever money was used was definitely allocated for educational and research purposes, on the ground that without such allocation there would be an ill-balanced development, the natives would come into improved conditions without knowing how to use their money, and so on. In this proposed loan, we on this side of the House would like to see a much more generous application of that principle and a much better balance than £39,000 represents in relation to £10,000,000 from the point of view of a sound conception of how the best development of these East African Colonies can be secured.
In that connection I should like to ask whether, in the case of this loan, it is proposed to allocate money for the training of teachers in East Africa. The African Committee for Education, with which the Under-Secretary's name has been so honourably associated for the past two years, has done admirable work on paper, but, as he knows, its very excellent recommendations for the development of native education and of research in Africa are largely held up because there is no money available for the development. Would Le not consider in addition to the possibilities of co - ordination of finance and administration in East Africa, and the possibilities of a common policy for these colonies and dependencies, would he not -consider a substantial grant of money as part of this loan in order that there may be developed, 10, 15 or 20 years hence, a-s rapidly as may be, a new kind of native teachers, a great new staff of native teachers for the whole immense work which is fundamental to any sound conception of East African development? With regard to the Jeanes School near Nairobi, would he be prepared to put money into schools like that or would he be prepared to work out the idea of a college for teachers which would be available perhaps for the whole of those colonies or dependencies at the same time? Cannot a great deal more he done than seems to be imminent, judging from the several publications bearing on the loan? Does he propose to put money into
Amani? Does he intend to overtake the breakdown of that institution since 1914, which has been such a great loss to the colonies?
Finally, I would like to emphasise this aspect of trusteeship with regard to the proposed loan and the great enterprises which it will make possible. The Labour party is keen all the time to secure effective and sound economic development at home as well as in all parts of the Empire. We have been trying for the last 18 months to put sensible ideas into the Tory party with regard to economics. It is one of the biggest national losses of the last hundred years that we have not succeeded in that. We stand wholeheartedly behind any economic proposal for the development of the material and other resources throughout the British Empire, but we are deeply concerned about the human aspects of this loan and the principles of trusteeship to which we are committed. There are three very definite principles which the Labour party has laid down with regard to the development of our resources. They are to be found in a recent publication by Labour's first. Colonial Secretary, entitled, "Land and the Empire, "My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) has said definitely that
The Labour party will stand by all efforts to realise these three principles of trusteeship. They are:

(1) The natives must be assured sufficient land for their support, and therefore the land must he treated as the property of the native communities.
(2) The native must, as a worker, be a free man, and hence there must be no slavery, no forced labour, and no pressure upon him to work for settlers.
(3) The administration must make itself responsible for educating the native to take his place, both economically and politically as a free man in the conditions which Western civilisation hits imposed upon Africa."

The only criticisms we bring to bear upon this proposed loan, apart from its financial aspects, are those which we have continually brought to bear with regard to our economic life at home. We are anxious that the natives themselves, those who have to spend their lives in these colonies, should have, through the application of this loan, a real measure of civilisation brought to them. It is from that point of view that we wish to emphasise that, so far as we are con-
cerned, the principle of trusteeship is fundamental. We wish to have some definite assurances that, over and above these great economic enterprises, the labour which will be involved and the conditions which will be attached to this loan will be such that we can say, not only here at home, but before the bar of judgment of the League of Nations, this loan does represent a real and concrete effort to apply the principles of trusteeship to one of the most difficult problems of citizenship in the modern world.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): Mr. Ormsby-Gore.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. Is it right and fair that both the spokesmen of the Government should make replies when they know there are other speakers waiting to put questions.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is not my affair. I am here to conduct the business of the Committee. I do not think the hon. Member has a grievance.

Mr, ORMSBY-GORE: I will give way.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gillett.

Mr. GILLETT: I am rather surprised at the way the financial question has been treated, especially by the hon. Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise). He seems to be rather stretching the amount of money concerned by talking about £16,000,000 being a strain upon the finance of this country. It is like the case of a, man with an income of some hundreds a year and a debt of some thousands of pounds who adds to it a debt of £16. It would be rather absurd to talk about a sum of that kind being a strain on his financial resources. It is just as well to bring the sum of money back to the right proportions in which it really stands in regard to the financial position of this country. After all, £16,000,000 to-day is not like £16,000,000 before the War. While I fully realise the importance of the hon. Member's point as to paying due attention to the way this money is spent, it seems to me that one of the most effective ways in which this country can help both the Colonies and the Dominions is by the financial assistance which it has been able to give in the past. We have seen
in Australia the advantages the Australian Colonies receive from the position in which their loans are placed upon the London money market. in the same way, while we have Colonies under our care, proposals of this kind are, provided the facts are satisfactory, one of the most effective ways of really helping to link together the different parts of the. British Empire.
I should like to ask one or two questions in regard to the guarantee which it is proposed to give. Looking at the Palestine proposal as well as the East African proposal, I would call the attention of the House to the fact that, in the first place, these proposals are the most satisfactory kind of debt that a country that has a debt can possibly have. If you are going to have a debt, it is far better to raise money to start railways or roads in parts of the country that need development. Part of the proposal for Palestine is to pay for a railway already put down, and it is only cancelling a debt already due to us. Therefore, we are looking at proposals which are satisfactory in the main. These proposals are better than naval or military expenditure, and we must remember that Singapore was estimated to cost as large a sum as this loan of £10,000,000 of which we are speaking. It is infinitely better to do this than to have military and naval expenditure, which, however needful some Members may think it, is often exceedingly extravagant. I would suggest that the hon. Member for Ilford should devote more of his attention to military and naval expenditure and rather less to expenditure of this kind, and he would be doing something for the general benefit of the country. I should like to ask whether it is a fact that there was a fairly large surplus in regard to the finances of Palestine at the end of the last financial year, and in the second place whether we are spending something like £500,000 mainly on the Air Service in Palestine, and if this is so, whether any proposal is going to be made that they might themselves bear the expense. I should also be interested to know what amount of money Palestine is to pay annually in connection with the share of the Ottoman Debt imposed upon her and whether any other country is paying anything in regard to the Ottoman Debt or whether
the amount allotted to Palestine is one of the few exceptions where the country actually concerned is really making a contribution in regard to the debts of the old Ottoman Empire.
Passing from Palestine, I should like to say a word or two in regard to the liability for this debt and the effect it may have upon the people in Kenya and the other Colonies. I should like to ask why it is that the proposal made by the recent Commission that this guarantee might have been given and at the same time the Imperial Government might have borne some interest on the loan for a certain time was turned down, and whether the hon. Gentleman is quite satisfied that these Colonies are in a financial position to bear the loss which will probably fall upon them when the money is expended on railway development? Lord Delamere has been quoted a good deal; I should like to draw attention to a speech he made last September about the building of a certain line that he was exceedingly anxious to have built, when he said the Government were not in that case paying the interest on the loan during the period in which the railway was being built. It is obvious that he feels that is going to fall in some way upon the Colony. If so, who is going to bear that loss in the first, few years before it can he made a paying concern? In many cases it might be quite wise to put these railways down, but it may be many years before they are going to be a financial success. Many of the State railways in Australia are not actually paying concerns, but the defence of the Australian Government is that in order to develop the large stretches of land under their control, it is essential to be prepared for a certain number of years to run the railways at a loss. If that is going to be done in Colonies like Kenya and Uganda, who is going to bear the loss? That is where the point raised by my hon. Friend is of such importance, as to whether it is going to fall upon the white settler or upon the black. If it is going to fall upon the white settler, it is obvious that some such proposal as that recommended by the recent Commission with regard to Income Tax will have to be brought in. If that is not going to be done, how is the money going to be raised?
An answer to a question a few months ago showed how taxation was raised, one part by the Customs and the other part by more direct taxation. The amount raised by Customs duties was borne rather equally by the black and the white, but when you come to direct taxation, by far the larger amount was being borne by the blacks. Therefore, if you are going to rely on direct taxation, what is going to happen? You may bring about the very thing my hon. Friend is most anxious not to happen, and force the black man, by puting an extra tax upon him, to go and work, whether he likes it or not, for the white employer, away from his own reserve, where he will not be able to work for himself. That seems to me to be the outstanding danger of this proposal, unless the Under-Secretary can convince us that he is going to grapple with this question of taxation to meet what in all probability will be a difficulty, at any rate for a time. I feel far less enthusiasm about the scheme if it is going to lead to a kind of forced labour, which is the thing the white settlers are asking for. In the interesting Report of the Commission of which the hon. Gentleman was Chairman, he himself stated that the black in Kenya has not been given opportunities for developing his own industries in the same way that the native population in West Africa have. I want to support the plea that as much as possible should be done in order to give the black man the opportunity of developing his own industry. I read recently an illustration of what. has been pointed out from these benches, the extraordinary growth which had taken place in the number of bicycles sofa in that part of the world where the cotton industry had been developed to a large extent in the hands of the black population—a thing that comes before us in another capacity in regard to applications that are made in connection with sending bicycles out to this part of the world. It seems to me all this tends to strengthen what I believe is to a large extent the point of view of the Under-Secretary, the importance of trying to get the black man not to work simply for the white but to develop his own industry. I should like to urge upon the Under-Secretary the great importance of trying to spend more of this money in connection with research and schools and things
of that kind. It is disappointing that out of this large sum only about £40,000 is allocated for that purpose. I hope, before the scheme passes through, the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some undertaking that that side of the proposal will be very carefully considered.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I apologise for intervening at this stage. But we had a long Debate in July and we have had a considerable Debate to-day. This is merely a Financial Resolution leading up to the introduction of a Bill, and there will have to be a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage and a Third Reading of the Bill. Before we can in troduce the Bill, as it is a Money Bill, these preliminary purely financial stages are gone through. I am sure that no representative of the Government has any cause to complain either of the tone or temper of the Debate that took place in July or the Debate which has taken place to-night. There is common agreement throughout all parties, if I accept, possibly, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise), that the British Empire as a whole has a great deal to gain by a sound, sober and, if I may animadvert upon the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) who opened the Debate, without hurry or undue haste, development of these undeveloped territories. I am perfectly convinced that this country, in spite of difficult times, is wealthy enough to encourage and assist by any legitimate means, such as the Colonial Stock Act in the case of Dominions and Colonies and such as this Bill in the case of mandated territories and dependencies the investment of money in the promotion of the essential means of capital development in these countries.
Let me come at once to some of the points raised by the two hon. Members who have just spoken. No one would like more than I to have any amount of money to spend on education, medical services and the rest of it in Africa, but this is not the way to do it. Recurrent money ought to be found out of revenue. It is a sound principle of Colonial finance that, as far as possible, each of the countries should develop their own resources and their own revenues for these services, and that the British taxpayer should not be called
upon to pay money for these recurrent services. Where the British House of Commons and the British Parliament can help is by enabling the peoples of these countries to create the wealth which will give them the revenue for these recurrent services. In the initial stages, it is absolutely essential, if this is to be done, that capital works should be financed cheaply and consistent with sound finance. That is the object of this Resolution and of the Bill which is to follow. It is in the nature of essential capital expenditure upon harbour works, upon railways, and to a less extent, upon roads. The reason why only a small proportion of the loan is to be set aside for research, is that the Treasury say, and they are perfectly right in saying, that they will only give money out of loan funds, and especially guaranteed loan funds, for capital expenditure in connection with research. Money will be forthcoming in this Bill for any further capital re-equipment of the Amani Institute. To the Amani Institute we have just appointed a director, and we are turning that into a second link in the proposed chain of tropical research stations, of which Trinidad is the first. It is going to be turned into a first-class scientific research institute.
Many points have been raised in regard to questions of policy which are really -more suited for the Second Reading of the Bill. I think I had better deal with one or two of the questions raised, and to suggest that in certain other cases it would be far better that the points should be dealt with by question and answer. The hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Gillett), for instance, asked me about the exact amount that Palestine is contributing to the Ottoman Debt, and what the other countries who formerly were part of the Ottoman Empire are contributing. That could best be dealt with by the hon. Member putting down a question and my giving an answer, because such questions tend rather to confuse the big issues that come into a Debate like this. Let me come to the point why this guarantee is necessary. That is the fundamental question. Why is it that a guarantee is necessary in this case, whereas in the case of West Africa or Australia no guarantee is necessary. It is mainly necessary because in this Resolution and in the Bill which will
follow we are dealing, in the main, with mandated territories. Mandated territories did not exist when the Colonial Stock Act was passed. We cannot do worse by the mandated territories than we do by our own Colonies.
From Kenya's point of view, and from many points of view, it is a matter of indifference whether Kenya is in this Bill or out of it. Kenya has good enough credit to raise any loan which she requires for her capital expenditure. I hope, Personally, that Kenya will be in. There are no railways in this scheme for construction in Kenya except at Kilindini Harbour, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Sir G. Butler). That is the principal subject where Kenya is concerned. But Kilindini Harbour is not only the harbour of Kenya; it is the harbour of the Uganda Protectorate and of a very important part of Tanganyika Territory and the mandated areas. The position, roughly, is that under our present law a colony, whether self-governing or non-self-governing, if it has the status of a colony can borrow on its own credit, but a protectorate or mandated territory or a con-dominion, such as the Sudan, has to come to this House for a guarantee before it can raise a loan on anything like the same terms as a British colony.
We could not defend our position before the League of Nations or before the world if we said that Kenya can borrow on advantageous terms, under the Colonial Stock Act, but Tanganyika is barred and prevented from borrowing on anything like such terms. The same applies to Palestine. That is why Palestine and East Africa come together. The major expenditure in East Africa, recommended both by the Commission of which I had the honour to be Chairman and by the Schuster Committee, which has carried the investigation of the problem a step further, is in regard to that great central country the Tanganyika territory, of which we hold the mandate. It is very essential that if we are to do our duty to these countries, not only in the interests of the natives and the white settlers but in the interests of the whole community of that country, we should enable the Tanganyika terri-
tory to raise the capital necessary for its essential capital development and work at a reasonable cost.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University asked about Kilindini harbour. I can assure him that there is no ground for saying that there has been undue delay. First, we did appoint a local Commission to go into the question of the future of the harbour of Mombasa, vital as that harbour is to the whole of East Africa's progress. They produced a Report in the light of local evidence. It was only right that we should submit that Report to the review of the Imperial Shipping Committee. We only received the Report of the Imperial Shipping Committee after the Schuster Committee's Report was published in July. We sent the Report of that Imperial Shipping Committee out to the various Governments interested in Kilindini, and we are in course of receiving their comments and replies. Meanwhile, we have taken the most vital decision, namely, to authorise the building of the two further deep-water berths. This has been definitely decided upon by the Colonial Office, and, as a temporary proposal, we have made these ports a railway service. But in regard to the life and the payment of any possible deficits on the working of that port, there is still the necessity of negotiating between the view put forward by the local Commission and the view put forward by the Imperial Shipping Committee. That is under discussion at the present moment, and hope that a decision will be arrived at, and it certainly will be arrived at before the time is up when this ceases to be a railway service, namely, at the end of next year.
A great many questions have been, I think, due to misapprehensions, certainly on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford (Sir F. Wise) and also certain apprehensions on the part of the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. W. Baker). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir N. Moore) also had the same misapprehension. They imagined that we have here and now ready schemes for expenditure up to the definite amount of £10,000,000. We have not. The first step, you may say, was taken by the Labour Government, when they sent my two colleagues and myself out to Africa with the terms DC reference. How can you accelerate
the economic development of East Africa? We spent a few hasty months in travelling throughout the six East African 'Dependencies, collecting all the views we could from the people we met. [An HON. MEMBER: "And had a good time!" I We did have an extremely good time, and I hope also we did some good.

Mr. DALTON: Have you accelerated development?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certainly, we produced the idea of further railway development and the idea of the £10,000,000 loan. We made a whole number of proposals which have now been given effect to, and, above all, we proposed—I put it, as a rough estimate, at £10,000,000, which is probably on the conservative side—in the near future—I put it at the next five years—for railway construction in that part of the world. Obviously, as the result of a four months' tour through these countries, I was not in a position, nor was my Liberal colleagues or my Labour colleague, to lay down finally that the railway must go here, or must not go there. We made general recommendations in the light of the evidence we had. Obviously, the Treasury before they could agree to that proposal required further information. Hence the Schuster Committee. My right hon. Friend has accepted the recommendations of the Schuster Committee, and the recommendations of the Schuster Committee are at this stage. They are the specific proposals of His Majesty's Government. Those proposals clearly say that before you embark on actual construction you have got to expend money in the necessary economic and engineering surveys. Remember that these have not taken place. The personnel in those countries is still few in number, and the countries are inadequately mapped. We have only been in Kenya for 32 years. In Tanganyika, the main block has only been mandated to us since the War, and so the idea that we are rushing forward with an ill-considered plan of railway construction is not to be envisaged for one moment. We shall proceed, as in all these cases, on the advice of eminent surveyors, and the first money which will be spent under this loan will be for the necessary expense on the survey which—

Sir N. MOORE: How long will the survey take?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It has been continuously at work some little time, thanks partly to what was done by the late Government in the £3,500,000 which they advanced in cash—not a guaranteed loan.

Sir F. WISE: With no interest for five years.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: We have got a staff in Uganda at the present time which is capable, now that the preliminary work has been done, of carrying on the further survey, and that is being done. I hope this development will go on continuously for at least the next 10 years in all these cases. There is so much room for development that instead of attempting to say you will do so much and then stop, what you want is considered progress and steady development over a long period of years. Your labour policy alone will necessitate your going reasonably slow. These are large territories, rather sparsely populated. Fan HON. MEMBER: "What benefits will the natives get?"] Certainly I hope the natives will reap great benefits from these developments. I hope the natives will reap the major part of the benefits. [Interruption.] I should be the last person who would endeavour to impose land value taxes upon native holdings. That kind of thing might be very well for Henry George sitting in the study, but it is not practical politics to-day.

Mr. MacLAREN: If the hon. Member answers an interruption, he ought to understand the interruption correctly.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I apologise if I did not understand the question. I thought I understood the hon. Member's point of view quite clearly. He wants any advantage that comes from the expenditure of the capital sum upon the development of railways not to accrue to the people who are opening up the country to trade.

Mr. MacLAREN: At present the land speculators are getting all the benefits from this land development, and hence there is no return for five years.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should be so interested to know who these land speculators are. I have travelled a good
many miles on practically all the railways in British tropical Africa and if the hon. Member had gone out and seen some of the principal land speculators, I think he would have learned that his theories do not fit the facts.

Mr. MacLAREN: Read your Minority Report!

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The hon. Member for Richmond raised the question of gauge. We are taking care that in all these future railway developments there may be an expansion from the narrow gauge system if need requires, and we are having the steel sleepers specially constructed so that those sleepers can be used for the broader as well as the narrower gauge. This will not be an appreciable extra expenditure. It will be a little extra expenditure, but looking at the far future it is all important that we should be able to have the heavier gauge because there is no doubt that in the future, especially when the native production of crops such as cotton, grow, everything is going to depend on the cheapness of the traffic rates. Every capacity of being able to haul goods from the interior of Africa to the coast depends on having heavy locomotives and the big trains which can haul native produce. That is of the utmost importance in that area.
As to the allocation between the countries, as I have stated, the major portion will go, as far as railway development is concerned, to the mandated territories and to the Protectorates. Kenya is capable of financing its own internal development, but the cost is contemplated to come under this loan. On policy, hon. Members are, I believe, quite wrong in believing that there is necessarily an opposition know some settlers take that view, but I do not take that view. I do not take the view that there is necessarily some opposition between what is called native production and European enterprise. The "dual policy," as it has been called, is, of course, a definite declaration, that in the same area in East Africa you shall have both; that there shall he areas in the highlands where the European may be encouraged to grow crops which he alone, with the necessary capital and machinery, can cultivate, but that in other areas, set aside as native reserves,
you can encourage native production, not only of foodstuffs but of economic produce. The essence of the dual policy is that the native should be absolutely free to choose between either kind of productive effort, that he can either produce on the land or in his own reserve. The Government say," If you decide to do absolutely nothing "—and it is very easy in a tropical country to allow your women folk to do everything—" then you will decline in your interest and in the world's interest, and will not be a producer." And that is what we are endeavouring to teach them. Not only in schools, but in every way we do want to encourage the African native to become a producer on his own land, growing cotton, growing cocoa, growing the native crops which he can manage, or, if he wants to, to let some of the boys do so. I think a great many of them would benefit, the majority of them at any rate, if they learnt something about scientific European cultivation.
There is an interesting parallel in this matter between Palestine and East Africa, both in this Resolution. The Jew is arriving in Palestine. He is introducing more up-to-date agricultural machinery, more up-to-date agricultural methods, more up-to-date scientific methods of cultivation and utilisation of the land, while the. Arab, much more primitive and much more old-fashioned, is learning rather rapidly from the Jew, who is coming into his midst with his modern Western scientific methods. In the same way, I have seen many a case in East Africa in a native reserve where a native has learned a great deal from going on a European farm, seeing the plough which he has never seen before, seeing how a team of oxen or a tractor can work and learning modern agriculture and modern methods. I am perfectly certain that the dual policy in the circumstances of East Africa is the right policy, and the injustice which many people imagine must be done is not being done, and that the community is going forward. You cannot possibly succeed in the highlands of East Africa without the good will and co-operation of European and native, and there can be no ultimate advance unless the native has also the guidance of white scientific methods and white interests. There is bound to be friction where you bring a race from one
tribe and one industry, with immense equipment for dealing with the forces of nature, and put it into the middle of a primitive people only just emerging from tribal warfare and barbarism. The matter is alluded to in the three Resolutions which set forth the views of the Labour party on this matter. They insist on training the African in civilisation and in the modern conditions of the world. That is the problem of trusteeship. The problem oil trusteeship is not merely leaving the native just where he was 100 or 200 years ago. It is the problem of teaching him in the modern civilised world, in a country of enormous potential riches, of immense value to civilisation, producing products which are grown by the people both on the north and south of the great tropical belt.
One word about the Balfour Declaration. There is no new declaration or policy to make. There is no change in Government policy of the last four Governments: the Balfour Declaration stands. We are seeking to do justice to Jew and Arab. We fully realise that both require a better use of the land and the land problem there, as in East Africa, is by no means an easy one. The allocation of land is by no means easy. Surveys are going on and the work is being done and I am perfectly convinced that the recent avoidance of disturbances through the increasing co-operation between the Government and all sections of the community, and particularly between the Jew and the Arab, show that the British policy is being justified and that that country, which so many people a few years ago thought would be a liability, is turning out to be a valuable asset for the purposes of trade. Few people would have realised a few years ago that to-day we should have a surplus balance on the local revenues of Palestine of over £1,000,000 sterling and that Palestine is now in a position to raise a loan and pay off capital.
I agree with the hon. Member on this side of the Committee who said that the one further step which is required is to make the land profitable. I disagree with the misleading figures quoted by the hon. Member for Ilford. Most of the imports of Palestine are necessarily Egyptian. They come from all parts of the world, but the bulk is broken in Egypt, and they appear as Egyptian
goods. But the one thing that is necessary is the provision of harbour facilities. If we can provide adequate harbour facilities, say, two harbours, I am convinced that there is a bright economic future before the country. It is a country of goodwill, peace, order and growing prosperity, due to the wisdom of successive British Governments in maintaining a consistent policy in the face of many detractors and many critics. I hope the House will now pass the Committee stage of this Financial Resolution and enable us to bring in the Bill, on which we can have further discussions during the various stages of the Measure.

M r. JOHNSTON: There will be further opportunity during the passage of this Financial Resolution for hon. Members to discuss in detail the labour conditions under which a considerable portion of the money to be guaranteed under this loan is to be spent, but there is one point to which I should like to draw the attention of my own colleagues on this side of the House. One of the grounds for the expenditure of this money is the building of a bridge over the Zambesi, and one of the reasons for the building of this bridge is that it is going to develop or will facilitate the development of the Tete coalfield. This coalfield will supply 300,000 tons of coal, which will supplant British coal on the African market, and, if you please, the proprietors of this coalfield are a Belgian syndicate! You have this curious position. The taxpayers of this country are to guarantee a loan, a portion of which is to facilitate the development of a coalfield which is to expel British coal from West Africa, and the proprietors of this particular coalfield are a Belgian syndicate. I have heard no justification whatever of such a proposal. The Financial Secretary considers that every proposal in this Money Resolution was going to assist British trade and relieve unemployment in Great Britain. I hope during the further progress of this Measure, we shall get some details of this Tete coalfield, and how it is going to assist British labour.
There is a further point to which I desire to draw the attention of the enthusiastic Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. It is in regard to the figures for Kenya. The policy under which Kenya has been administered is
as different from the policy on which we have run West Africa as night is from day. In West Africa there is prosperity, there is labour ownership, there is cooperation, and there is no capitalist exploitation. No concessionnaires have been allowed. Lord Leverhulme was hunted over the border by a very courageous and able Governor. He was compelled to go into Belgian territory to set up an exploitation factory. What is the result? The result is that the natives there, under these conditions, under what, for the sake of argument, we will call labour conditions, under co-operative and not exploiting conditions—the natives last year, per head of population, bought more British goods than did the citizens in the United States.
What is the situation in Kenya under Lord Delamere's policy? Here are some facts taken from the survey of Overseas Trade, which I assume is authoritative evidence. In 1920 34 per cent. of the total imports of Kenya were from Great Britain, but in 1923 the percentage had fallen to 27 per cent. Kenya was unable to purchase British goods. Where did she go for them? In 1920 Japan supplied only 5 per cent. of the imports of Kenya, but in 1923 she supplied 24 per cent. The Japanese cotton factories have supplanted Lancashire, because Japanese labour is cheaper and Japanese conditions are worse, for in Japan hours are long and she has contract labour and so on; and the native of Kenya has been forbidden to develop and have a purchasing power such as his brother in West Africa has, and the native in Kenya is unable to buy British goods and is compelled to go to Japan for a cheaper quality of goods. If that statement can be answered, I want to hear the answer.
The Under-Secretary said, in response to an interruption, that he did not know where the speculators were in Kenya. Let me give him some information. One syndicate got 500 square miles from the Foreign Office, over the head of the then Governor of Kenya. That is a fairly extensive slice of territory to be handed away. Then there was a grazing land syndicate, called the East African Syndicate, which applied for 320,000 acres, and Lord Delamere, a notorious figure in these parts, applied for 100,000
acres. If one syndicate gets 500 square miles, another gets 320,000 acres, and another applies for 100,000 acres, there is some prima facie evidence of speculators in Kenya. I think it is undeniable that the conditions of labour there are the most unsatisfactory to be found in any part of the Empire. The biggest scandals are there. It is no good whatever for this House to pass with acclamation a Motion such as this—the purposes of the major portion of which we all agree with—and to take no steps whatever to preserve the native in East Africa from the gross exploitation which is taking place there. There is forced labour in East Africa. The natives are compelled to give 60 days' labour in the year, and, in some circumstances, can be compelled to give 180 days in the year, and the present Colonial Secretary allowed this forced labour to be given in certain cases at less than the current rate of wages. That cannot be justified. It is a reversal of the whole British tradition. If there is no other way out of it, why not bring Sir Hugh Clifford back from Ceylon and put him in charge?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think every railway in Nigeria where Sir Hugh Clifford was Governor, had to have an element of what is called forced or political labour. In West Africa, it was a month in the year. In East Africa the maximum allowed was 60 days. Forced labour on railway construction, which is practically the only form of forced labour that is allowed—and that under special conditions—has been far more general in West Africa than in East Africa, where it has been the exception.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We have had West Africa under our control for a much longer period than East Africa. Let me quote Sir Hugh Clifford, who was Governor of Nigeria from 1919 to 1925. He says:
I am strongly opposed to projects that have for their object the creation of European-owned and managed plantations to replace or even to supplement the agricultural industries which are already in existence or are capable of being developed by the people of Nigeria.
He did everything he could in that matter, even to the extent of having a bitter quarrel with Lord Leverhulme, so that that late lamented Lord would not leave his yacht to shake hands with the Governor
on his last visit there. The figures in regard to West Africa's trade with Great Britain are amazing. The Gold Coast in 1909 imported from this country £9,442 worth of motor cars, bicycles, etc., but in 1925 they were able to buy £193,583 worth, indicating working-class prosperity. In Kenya you have a reversal of that policy and you have poverty. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!" You have poverty when they go to Japan for goods. That is a fact you cannot deny. Your exports to Kenya are falling. Prosperity is indicated in West Africa by the exports of cocoa and so on, but East Africa is the only part of the Empire where you really have trouble of this kind. Before the House passes this Bill, the utmost possible care should be taken to see that there is a reversal of policy in East Africa. Instead of having the Masai's land planted and stolen from them, instead of having them driven into reserves and compelled to give forced labour not only on railways but in other businesses, there should be a policy of encouraging the native producer, of allowing him to be an owner, of developing co-operation and increasing his purchasing power. Only as this country can increase the purchasing power of her customers can we, in turn, become prosperous.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I wish definitely and directly to oppose the financial provision which is put forward here, and I fail to realise how any genuine Socialist can possibly take any other point of view. My hon. and gallant Friend from Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), who certainly deserves credit and admiration from everybody, inside and outside this House, for the magnificent victory that he won, broached the subject of Palestine. He assured us that he was not asking for the immunity accorded a maiden speech, and privately he has given me permission to take liberties with his speech as that of an old Member and not that of a maiden speaker. I realise that that was not a maiden speech from a new Socialist recruit. It was the same old Liberal stuff, and there were several passages in it which are still worthy of the Green Book, and which cannot yet be incorporated in any Red Book. I am not talking about it in any spirit of
personal aggravation, but I think it is our duty to put our new colleague into proper shape.
I want to talk of Palestine as affecting the majority of the people there, namely, the Arabs, and also as a Socialist out and out. I am not quite pleased and satisfied with the argument, though the argument states a fact, and I, Therefore, do not support it. The argument used by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was that in the pretence to assist Palestine with this guarantee we were making the best bargain for ourselves. That is true, and that being true, as a Socialist, I am opposed to it. It was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member that the Arabs are there, but there without any capital, and he would like to see them displaced from their lands by our Jewish friends, because they went with capital. I am as much a friend of the Jewish race as of the Arabs or of my own people, but it is exactly my great objection that our Jewish capitalist friends are not to be encouraged in squatting there and appropriating the land, which should remain in the possession of the Arabs. Much was said about Haifa, that Haifa as a harbour is certainly the best place because it is most suited for British ships. So was Singapore, once upon a time.
I want to know from the Government-, in explicit terms, whether they are not putting Jaffa, the natural harbour, from the Arab point of view, into the background, and selecting Haifa for the reason that it will provide the shortest pipe line from the future oilfields to the sea coast; and whether it is not in their mind that Haifa will be a better Singapore than Jaffa, commanding the Red Sea, the Ægean Sea, and the Black Sea? It is all very well for us to talk of developing harbours, but what guarantee have we that this is not the first stage towards fortifying these harbours and making them naval bases? From the Arab point of view, Haifa has no preferential claim over Jaffa, and Jaffa would be a more natural place to select as a harbour for Palestine.
With regard to the railroad, I think the Government have pointed out in their explanatory note, and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull also candidly admitted, that we are making the best bargain for ourselves, and that
is the complaint of the Arabs. It is admitted that the existing railroad was constructed in war time for military purposes, and not for the economic development of the Arab population, out they are to be made to pay for it. It is all very well for the Committee to talk about our guaranteeing this loan and that loan, but ultimately the payment of the money and the guaranteed interest has to come out of the very hard work put in by the Arabs in Palestine and the negroes in the African colonies. That fact must never be lost sight of, and we want to now whether any Arab organisation expressing the opinion of the Arab population has endorsed the scheme of the Government?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? Is he aware that the whole Arab anti-Zionist agitation is led by the Arab effendi class, and that the Arab working men are going into the same trade unions with the Jewish people? The whole agitation the hon. Member is voicing is led by the Arab land-owning aristocracy.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I am not, as a Socialist, backing up one landed aristocracy against another, but I assure my hon. and gallant Friend, who has put me a fair question, that I have received direct complaints against this scheme from Arab working-class organisations—against Haifa being made a harbour, against paying money to the British Government for a useless railroad built for military purposes, and against the whole of this scheme of guaranteed loans.
Let me put forward my general opposition to the whole of this plan. I highly approve of the Labour Government's action—not to-night's expression of sympathy—in giving £3,000,000 in cash, without interest, for development. If we want an improvement in the economic development and physical welfare of the peoples of Africa and of Palestine, it is the duty of the Government to give them the money, and to see that it is used for no ulterior purposes by exploiters and Western financiers. We may be told that the local Governments in Palestine and East Africa are going to control any ambitious desires of individual financiers, but we know what happens under Government loans in connection with a
scheme of this sort. I hope this Committee has not forgotten the scandalous way in which the Bombay Government carried out the Bombay Reclamation Scheme.
I want a guarantee that contracts will not be given out by the Palestine Government to their own nephews and cousins. We want a guarantee that these contracts will not be placed by some sort of a previous arrangement as, undoubtedly, the scandalous Bombay scheme was put through, to the ruination of the taxpayers of Bombay. I have heard almost all the speeches on the Labour side of this House, and, on the whole, they have been backing up this scheme. I object to this scheme on the fundamental grounds of Socialism, from which no genuine Socialist can afford to depart. I am perfectly sure that anybody who does not vote against these financial provisions is voting for the lowering of the miners' wages in this country. It is no use trying to put the blame on the Prime Minister, because he declared that his policy was to '.over wages in all the trades.

The CHAIRMAN: Those arguments seem to have no particular connection with the question of guaranteeing loans for East Africa and Palestine.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: It is this kind of financial provision which makes capitalist exploitation possible in countries where low wages exist, and this is the kind of thing which makes the task of the Prime Minister in lowering wages not only easy but inevitable and unavoidable. I appeal to all the comrades on the Labour benches to establish a principle not to vote for any sums of money either as guaranteed loans or as direct assistance or even under the Trade Facilities Act to corporations or to countries where labour is going to be employed at even less than 3s. or 6s. per day of eight hours. It is the bounden duty of every representative of British labour to recognise the fact that these guaranteed loans must, in the first place, further facilitate the exploitations of British capitalists in other countries. We must al I recognise that this provision to which we are urged to agree to-night means the further creation of cheaper and cheaper oriental labour amongst the Arabs and the negroes, and this policy is bound to pull down the standard of wages.
On these two grounds I feel staggered that anyone on the Labour benches should give his adherence to a scheme of this nature. I would certainly say that, if assistance is required to be given in the Socialist spirit of a richer brother giving it to a poorer brother, on the basis of share and share alike, it is all right, but when a Government guarantee is given for the furtherance of capitalist exploitation and expansion, what does that mean? We had a very sordid confession to-day in this House from the Front Government Bench giving details of the number of gunboats, British, French, Japanese and American, that have gone up the Yang-tse River. Why have they gone there? Because of the British, French, and American investments in somebody's country in the past. We are told that the British taxpayer is only taking just a nominal liability, that we are only guaranteeing the loan, and that we are not advancing money. It is the right thing to advance cash money, but it is the wrong thing to guarantee the loan simply to back up exploiters and speculators, instead of giving your own money and controlling the whole procedure of that development yourselves.
There will be a very heavy burden upon the British taxpayer on that account, not to the extent merely of the interest, but ten times the rate of interest on this £14,000,000. Within three or four years we shall be told, "Haifa is a developed harbour; we have guaranteed the cost of it; let us place two gunboats near it for its safeguard." We shall be told," Kenya and Tanganyika are no longer mere jokes; we have a liability of £10,000,000 there; our money is at stake; let us keep a big battleship round about those waters, and let us keep two or three regiments to strengthen the garrison in these Colonies and safeguard British interests and our Government liability." We know that this is the thin end of the wedge, that this money is not given for the sake of the poor Arabs and negroes. The hon. Gentleman told us the reason. Here are your Jew capitalist friends who, with their capital, go and settle there, and the Arabs have the privilege of looking on them and learning. So also there are our white settlements and reserves where the African negroes have the privilege of going and learning.
It is certainly not Socialism for Jewish capitalists from abroad to go and become the owners of the Arabs' land, to be the exploiting, profiteering capitalists, and to make the original owner of the land a looker-on and a wage-earner for all time at about 7d. or 8d a day. If it is the idea that the people of these countries should be given an opportunity of learning up-to-date methods and systems, surely the Government of Great Britain might easily achieve that result by sending out expert scientists and giving them sufficient money to buy agricultural implements, to teach the Arabs directly up-to-date methods of cultivation, without exploiting them and making them slaves to work for whatever exploiter comes forward with some plausible tale. I therefore say to this Committee that, on fundamental grounds, as a Socialist, I am an out-and-out opponent of this financial Vote to-night.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HEALTH (SMOKE ABATEMENT) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE I.—(Amendment of 38 and 39 Vict. c. 55, and 54 and 55 Vict. c. 76 in respect of smoke nuisances.)

Mr. SCURR: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out from the word "metals" to the end of line 13.
Hon. Members will see that its effect is to leave out a certain power which the Minister of Health has taken in order that he may make a Provisional Order exempting other industrial processes in exactly the same way as at the present time the processes specified in the Clause, which relate to the processes of re-heating, annealing, hardening, forging, converting, and carburising iron and other metals are exempted. These processes refer particularly, I am given to understand, to the industries of Sheffield. I do not want in any sense of the word to wreck the chances of this Bill. In many ways it is an admirable Bill. The only fault we on these benches have to find with it is that it does not go far enough. Therefore, we are very much
opposed to any proposition in the Bill which has any tendency to weaken it. An agreement has been made, for good reasons perhaps, that the Sheffield processes should be exempted, but there is no argument, and no justification in my judgment, for giving the Minister power to bring in any other industrial processes. After all, the words, "Any other industrial process" are exceedingly wide. They can cover any kind of industry in the country. It means that the whole object of the Bill will be absolutely wrecked. This Measure has been considered and is very largely supported by the Federation of British Industries who are prepared, speaking as representatives of the industrial community, to support this Bill, and yet we find that the Minister is doing all that he can to weaken it.
I certainly think it is an entirely wrong proposal on the part of the Minister. I also object to the tendency that is growing in all legislation that is coming forward to be constantly having Provisional Orders for this and the other, exempting this and exempting the other. It is said we can always deal with them in the House, but they are never seriously dealt with in the House. Over and over again Provisional Orders we made, and we are not cognisant that they are in existence. It may he said they are laid on the Table for so many days, but that is no protection at all. What it really means is that power is placed in the hands of the Minister. I could trust the present occupant of the office to a large extent, but he may be succeeded by Ministers who have not his strength, and therefore would be likely to yield to pressure brought by great industrial interests. It is absolutely wrong in principle.

Mr. MARCH: I beg to second the Amendment.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): This Amendment was discussed in Committee and was rejected. The reason for the suggestion is that my right hon. Friend has received representations from other trades and industries asking to be put in the same position as what are called the Sheffield industries, which have been excluded by the Bill, and were excluded by the Bill introduced by the Labour Government.
My right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any statement in regard to any application which may be made to him in the future, but it is thought reasonable that any trade or industry which makes an application should have the right to put its case forward, and if my right hon. Friend thinks proper he would proceed by way of Provisional Order, and by that means the final word would remain with Parliament itself. Under the circumstances I think it is a proper proposal, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the matter further, but will accept the decision of the Committee, which I think was given on right and reasonable grounds.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I lope the Minister will not accept the Amendment. There are many other industries which will be able to put up a very good case for exemption which are not included in the list in the Bill, and the suggestion of the Mover that this power should not be given to the Minister is to my mind altogether wrong. Many manufacturers, particularly those in the Potteries, object very much to the Bill as it stands, and would have very strenuous objections if the power the Minister will have under this Clause was taken away from him. These people have not had the opportunity of placing their case before the Minister.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of the Isle of Wight, which was presented on the 30th day of August, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the parish of Uphill, in the rural district of Axbridge, in the county of Somerset, which was presented on the 30th day of August, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban districts of Barkisland, Midgley, Rishworth, Scammonden, and Soyland, and part of the urban district of Sowerby, the rural district of Todmorden, and the parishes of Norland and Upper Greetland, in the rural district of Halifax, all in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 30th day of August, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the counties of Gloucester and Warwick, which was presented on the 30th day of August, 1926, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the burgh of Dingwall, the parishes of Dingwall, Fearn, Nigg, and Tarbat, and parts of the parishes of Roskeen, Alness, Kiltearn, Fodderty, Contin,
Urquhart, and Logic Western, Urray,- Kilmuir Easter, Logie Easter, Edderton, and Tain, in the county of Ross and Cromarty, which was presented on the 25th day of October, 1926, he approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1922, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of parts of the rural districts of Maidstone, Malting, and Hollingbourn, in the county of Kent, which was presented on the 25th day of October, 1926, be approved. "—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon. Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th, September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.